FCC Web Documents citing 64.1300

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. § 201-276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as ``West Star.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) (``Notice''). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) (``Notice'') See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.pdf
  • Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., (``Defendants'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied its allegations. On September 8, 2009, APCC Services filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. In its Motion, APCC Services states that it has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.pdf
  • 9, 2009 Released: November 12, 2009 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Next-G Communication, Inc. (``Next-G''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Next-G for possible violations of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. The Bureau and Next-G have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A2.pdf
  • No. 0010717874 CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'' or ``FCC'') and Next-G Communication, Inc. (``Next-G'' or the ``Company''), by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation into whether Next-G violated section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's Rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's Rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. I. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: ``Act'' means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.pdf
  • switch of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on October
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf
  • 28, 2010 Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. (``APCC'') filed against CCI Communications, LLC (``CCI'') and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). As explained below, because CCI is a ``Completing Carrier'' under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. BACKGROUND Per-Call Payphone Compensation Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to ensure that all
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. (``Compass Global''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf
  • should be reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.pdf
  • and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 408 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1992)); OCI Initial Br. at 32-34 (same). See U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24556 n.28 (2004) (``[T]he Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act . . . and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules . . . . Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges - which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer - section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules specifically impose an obligation on the `customer' to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.pdf
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). APCC alleges that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on ``Completing Carriers.'' The principal question presented is whether any of the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the amount of $574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.pdf
  • Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act Of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3517-18, ¶¶ 11-12 (2007). . APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. Network IP, LLC et al., LLP., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300. Supplemental Response at 4. See APCC Services v. Network IP, 20 FCC Rcd at 2074 ¶ 2, 2077 ¶ 10. Supplemental Response at 3. Supplemental Response at 2-3. Supplemental Response at 3. 47 U.S.C. § 153(20). Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access To The Internet Over Cable And Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4821
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. § 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, ¶¶ 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2162A1.txt
  • Ameritech Michigan; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a Ameritech Ohio; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin; Pacific Bell Telephone Company; and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (collectively, ``Complainants'') against One Call Communications, Inc. (``One Call'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants assert that One Call violated section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by failing to compensate Complainants for ``1+'' calls that originated at Complainants' payphones and were routed to One Call's network. We agree and order One Call to compensate Complainants in the amount of $42,440.91, plus interest, for completed 1+ calls that One Call carried between October 7, 1997 and December 31, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.txt
  • within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 208. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320. These
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.txt
  • defendants from delay. We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.txt
  • defendants from delay. We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.txt
  • defendants from delay. We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.txt
  • updating the cost model the Commission adopted in Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2545 (1999) (Third Report and Order). APCC states that it is seeking only a change in the rate of $0.24 per call of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(c) and is not seeking either a new rule or any other revisions to this rule. APCC asserts that substantial changes to market conditions since the Commission adopted the Third Report and Order justifies an increase to the $0.24 rate. See Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 2647-48. On September 4, 2002, the RBOC Coalition (BellSouth Public Communications, Inc.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.txt
  • with prejudice. We find that dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 208. See 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.txt
  • as such, TS Interactive allegedly provides interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carries traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed the formal complaint in this proceeding against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that Defendant was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Specifically, Complainants allege that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999. In accordance with the Commission's formal complaint procedures, Complainants indicated their desire to have the liability issues resolved prior to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.txt
  • the relevant period, TS Interactive provided interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carried traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed a formal complaint (``formal complaint'') against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that TS Interactive was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Specifically, Complainants alleged that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering into a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999. Although TS Interactive made an initial settlement proposal, it eventually decided not to participate further in the liability phase
• 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
  • C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that either party, or the Commission on its own motion, may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the re-conversion date FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (Filed Feb. 28, 2003) (''Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. §§ 276, 201(b). 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300, et seq. Letter from Jennifer M. Kashatus, Counsel for Cable & Wireless, to Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, MDRD, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Dec. 15, 2003) (``Stay Letter''). 11 U.S.C. § 362. Id.; Stay Letter. Joint Request of Qwest and U.S. South to Extend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Apr. 2, 2004). Joint Request For Dismissal With
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2001A1.txt
  • September 30, 2004, we will clarify this rule at a later date. The rules define a ``Completing Carrier'' to mean ``a long distance carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call or a local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call.'' 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320. See OMB Approval No. 3060-1046 (May 5, 2004). 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1310(a), 64.1320. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 hj hä + , 0 A G H T f ˆ " ß ý hä ÿ‰PNG r
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.txt
  • on an interim basis until the new rules became effective. The Commission received OMB approval on May 5, 2004, and the Payphone Order and the new rules became effective on July 1, 2004. In addition, the Commission adopted a Report and Order on July 27, 2004, revising the default rate of payphone compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the rules. Comments No party filed comments addressing Part 64, subpart M. Recommendation WCB staff finds that these rules remain necessary in the public interest because they facilitate competition in the provision of payphone service and ensure that PSPs, which provide a necessary public service by making available payphones for public use, receive fair compensation for calls made from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.txt
  • Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'') against Network IP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``NIP'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants claim that NIP violated sections 201(b), 276, and 416(c) of the Act by failing to pay Complainants the compensation required by section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules for certain payphone calls completed during the period October 7, 1997 through November 23, 2001 (the ``Relevant Period''). For the reasons explained below, we find that NIP's failure to pay compensation to Complainants violates section 64.1300 of the rules and thus sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. Because we grant Complainants' claims under sections 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.txt
  • America of Salt Lake City, Inc. Answer to Formal Complaint of APCC Services, Inc., et al., FCC File No. EB-05-MD-018 (filed September 23, 2005). Reply of APCC Services, Inc. to Joint Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 05-198 (filed Aug. 22, 2005) (Reply to Joint Opposition) at 2. Reply to Joint Opposition at 3 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-1320). Id. at 3 (citing U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel America of Salt Lake City, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 24,552, 24,556, n.28 (2004)). Rather, APCC argues that the appellants in SBC v. FCC sought additional protections beyond enforcement of the Commission's rules, which the D.C. Circuit found unnecessary. Reply to Joint Opposition at 4. APCC concludes that the very adoption of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.txt
  • better served by granting the waiver to allow some small flexibility in the deadline established by rule 1.718. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are, inter alia, billing and collection agents for numerous independent payphone service providers (``PSPs''). NET is a switch-based reseller. On behalf of Complainants' PSP principals, the Formal Damages Complaint seeks recovery of ``dial-around'' payphone compensation from Defendants under rule 64.1300, which implements (along with other rules) section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Under rule 1.718, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the same parties and the same matter, but only if the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.txt
  • Coast Coin, Inc., Kellee Communications Group, Inc., and PayTel Communications, Inc. (collectively, the ``PSP Complainants'') are payphone services providers. APCC is an agent of the PSP Complainants, and of other payphone service providers, for the billing and collection of dial-around compensation. IDT is a common carrier providing interexchange telecommunications services. IDT is also a ``Completing Carrier,'' as defined by section 64.1300(a) of the Commission's rules. The Relevant Law The Commission's payphone compensation rules are designed to ensure, inter alia, that payphone service providers are fairly compensated for coinless calls originated from their payphones. For the period at issue here, those rules require that the last facilities-based long distance carrier in a call path, the ``Completing Carrier,'' compensate the payphone service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1862A1.txt
  • information regarding this public notice contact Denise Coca, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-0574. A Completing Carrier is a long distance carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call or a local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a). An Intermediate Carrier is a facilities-based long distance carrier that switches payphone calls to other facilities-based long distance carriers. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(b). 47 U.S.C. § 276. See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19975 (2003) (Payphone Order); Order on Reconsideration,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.txt
  • market entry and exit requirements and ensure that all payphones provide free access to dialtone, emergency calls, and telecommunications relay service calls for the hearing disabled. Need: This subpart encourages competition in the payphone industry and promotes the deployment of payphone services as directed by section 276 of the Communications Act. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 276. Section Number and Title: 64.1300 Payphone compensation obligation. 64.1310 Payphone compensation procedures. 64.1320 Payphone call tracking system audits. 64.1330 State review of payphone entry and exit regulations and public interest payphones. 64.1340 Right to negotiate. SUBPART O -- INTERSTATE PAY-PER-CALL AND OTHER INFORMATION SERVICES Brief Description: Part 64, Subpart O implements section 228 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Subpart O mandates that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.txt
  • of proposed rulemaking on March 14, 2005 to consider modification of the default rate of per-payphone compensation that applies when carriers are unable to pay per-call compensation to payphone service providers. This action followed the Commission's modification, in a report and order released August 12, 2004, of the default rate of per-call compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission also issued an Order on Reconsideration clarifying and modifying the Payphone Compensation Rules on October 22, 2004. Comments No party filed comments addressing Part 64, subpart M. Recommendation WCB staff does not find that the rules are ``no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of
• 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
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. § 201-276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.txt
  • Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act), CG Docket No. 04-53 11/30/10 3060-1079 Sec. 15.240, Radio Frequency Identification Equipment (RFID) 02/28/11 3060-1080 Collections for the Prevention or Elimination of Interference and for the Reconfiguration of the 800 MHz Band 08/31/11 3060-1081 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45 10/31/08 3060-1083 Secs. 64.1300 through 64.1340 06/30/11 3060-1084 Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers (CARE), CG Docket No. 02-386 06/30/10 3060-1085 Collection of Location Information, Provision of Notice and Reporting on Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) E911 Compliance 01/31/09 3060-1086 Secs. 74.786, 74.787, 74.790, 74.794 and 74.796 07/31/11 3060-1087 Section 15.615, Broadband Over Power
• 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
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as ``West Star.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) (``Notice''). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• 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
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• 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
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• 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
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• 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
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) (``Notice'') See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1792A1.txt
  • July 14, 2008. APCC and Applicants submitted additional filings during the pendency of this proceeding. Implementation of Further Streamlining Measures for Domestic Section 214 Authorizations, CC Docket No. 01-150, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 5517, 5529, para. 22 (2002). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03. APCC Comments at 1-4. APCC Comments at 5-8 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 276; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300). On February 9, 2009, APCC filed a formal complaint under section 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 208, against True LD and its related companies for failure to pay dial around compensation. APCC Services, Inc. v. True LD, LLC, West Star Telecommunications, LLC, and Global Access LD, LLC, a/k/a Global Access Telecom, a/k/a Global Access, Inc., Formal Complaint, File
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.txt
  • Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., (``Defendants'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied its allegations. On September 8, 2009, APCC Services filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. In its Motion, APCC Services states that it has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.txt
  • November9, 2009 Released: November 12, 2009 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Next-G for possible violations of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"),1and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules,2relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act3and section 63.18 of the Commission's rules,4relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. 2. The Bureauand Next-G 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.txt
  • switch of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.txt
  • 28, 2010 Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. (``APCC'') filed against CCI Communications, LLC (``CCI'') and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). As explained below, because CCI is a ``Completing Carrier'' under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. BACKGROUND Per-Call Payphone Compensation Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to ensure that all
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.txt
  • Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act), CG Docket No. 04-53 11/30/13 3060-1079 Sec. 15.240, Radio Frequency Identification Equipment (RFID) 03/31/11 3060-1080 Collections for the Prevention or Elimination of Interference and for the Reconfiguration of the 800 MHz Band 08/31/11 3060-1081 Secs. 54.202, 54.209, 54.307, 54.313, 54.314, and 54.809 09/30/11 3060-1083 Secs. 64.1300 through 64.1340 06/30/11 3060-1084 Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers (CARE), CG Docket No. 02-386 06/30/13 3060-1085 Sec. 9.5, Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) E911 Compliance 06/30/12 3060-1086 Secs. 74.786, 74.787, 74.790, 74.794 and 74.796 10/31/12 3060-1087 Sec. 15.615 07/31/11 3060-1088 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. (``Compass Global''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1450A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a Pacific Communications and Lake Country Communications, Inc. (collectively, GCB), pursuant to section 1.2 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, GCB requests that the Commission issue a declaratory ruling to respond to a referral from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The district court is presiding over a payphone compensation dispute involving GCB. Section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules, which implements section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), provides that ``a Completing Carrier that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call from a switch that the Completing Carrier either owns or leases shall compensate the payphone service provider for that call at a rate agreed upon by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262861A1.txt
  • 03-225 Dial-Around Calls from Payphones ) ERRATUM Released: December 22, 2005 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: 1. On August 12, 2004, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 04-182, in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum makes two corrections to that Report and Order. 2. The first sentence of paragraph 1 is corrected so that it refers to section 64.1300(d), rather than section 64.1300(c). 3. Appendix A of the Report and Order is replaced by the Appendix A attached to this Erratum. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 276, and sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291209A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Report No. 2889 June 5, 2009 CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REFERENCE INFORMATION CENTER ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ RM NO. RULES SEC. PETITIONER DATE RECEIVED NATURE OF PETITION 11535 64.1300- Dollar Phone 05/12/2009 In the Matter of Petition for 1340 Corporation Rulemaking with Regard to Dial Around Compensation (Filed By: James A. Stenger Chadbourne & Parke LLP 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036) ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________FCC PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 /
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-109A1.txt
  • customers must comply with the Commission's interpretation of the payphone compensation rules as articulated in the Payphone Order on Reconsideration and interpreted in Bell Atlantic-Frontier Order; namely, the first facilities-based carrier must pay unless the reseller has identified itself to the first facilities-based carrier as being responsible for paying compensation . As set forth in Appendix B, we revise section 64.1300(a) to impose compensation payment responsibility upon the first facilities-based interexchange carrier to which the LEC routes a compensable coinless payphone call. Similarly, we revise section 64.1310(a) to impose upon the same facilities-based carrier the responsibility to track or arrange for tracking of calls, and to send back to the PSP a statement indicating the number of completed toll-free and access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.txt
  • Verizon that enables it to identify any resellers responsible for compensation. BACKGROUND 2. Section 276 of the Act requires the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' In response, we adopted the following payphone compensation rules: § 64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation. Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract. * * * In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is obligated to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-355A1.txt
  • transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47 U.S.C. § 226(a)(2). Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 6122 (1998) (Second Report and Order). Id. at 6127-6128. Today, payphone owners are compensated for such dial around calls. See 47 CFR § 64.1300 et seq. Pub. L. No. 101-435, 104 Stat. 986 (1990) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 226). See 47 U.S.C. § 226(c)(1)(B) (providing that each aggregator must ``ensure that each of its telephones presubscribed to a provider of operator services allows the consumer to use `800' and `950' access code numbers to obtain access to the provider of operator services desired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.txt
  • WorldCom must provide the name of a contact person at the SBR, a telephone number for that person, and the SBR's last known address. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that the Joint Request filed on January 7, 2002 is granted, consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Joint Request, File No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 7, 2002) (``Joint Request''). The original named complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-119A1.txt
  • at 7; APCC Reply Comments at 5. Cable & Wireless Comments at 2-3; MCI WorldCom Comments at 3-4; TRA Comments at 6. Second Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd at 8103, para. 8. Id. at 8106-07, paras. 15-16. See Second Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd. at 8108, para.21, App. B (setting forth amended rules); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300, 64.1310(a), (b) (2002). Sprint, 315 F.3d at 372, 378. Id. at 372, 378. Second Order on Reconsideration at para. 8. See Third Order on Reconsideration. Second Order on Reconsideration at para. 10. See Brief filed for Sprint Corp. et al., No. 01-1266 (D.C. Circuit Mar. 11, 2002) (``The record shows that. . . PSPs have had trouble collecting from SBRs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.txt
  • 1, 4, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 226, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§151, 154, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 226, and 276, IT IS ORDERED that the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 64, IS AMENDED by revising sections 64.1300(a) and (b), 64.1310(a), (b), (c), and (g), and 64.1320(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), as set forth in Appendix C of this Report and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for good cause found above, the interim rules set forth in Appendix B ARE EFFECTIVE upon their publication in the Federal Register and that the portions of this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-265A1.txt
  • since the Third Report and Order, requiring a revisitation of the $.24 rate. On September 30, 2002, the Wireline Competition Bureau sought comment on the petitions. In this proceeding, we grant petitions for rulemaking filed by payphone service providers (``PSPs'') and request comment on whether to modify the default rate of payphone compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of our rules. This action reflects our continued efforts to implement the requirements of section 276 of the Act, as amended (``Act''), which directs the Commission to ``promote the widespread development of payphone services to the benefit of the general public.'' In pursuit of this mandate, section 276(b)(1) also directs the Commission to establish ``a per call compensation plan to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-182A1.txt
  • 80 G. Use of a "Top Down" Test of Validity 81 H. Caller Pays 86 IV. Conclusion 92 V. Procedural Matters 93 VI. Ordering Clauses 94 APPENDIX A -- Final Rule APPENDIX B -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) iNTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY In this order, we modify the default rate of payphone compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of our rules. This action reflects our continued efforts to implement the requirements of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which directs the Commission to ``promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public.'' In pursuit of this mandate, section 276(b)(1) also directs the Commission to establish ``a per call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-251A1.txt
  • event this report is not filed, liability for calls completed by a SBR should default to the first facilities-based long distance carrier that received the payphone call from the originating LEC. However, the rules and the Report and Order clearly place liability only on the SBR, if it is the facilities-based long distance carrier that completes the call. Specifically, section 64.1300(a) states that, in instances where there is more than one long distance facilities-based carrier in a call path, the long distance facilities-based carrier that completes the call, defined in that section as the ``Completing Carrier,'' is liable for payphone compensation. This declaratory language makes clear that the last switch-based long distance carrier is always liable for compensation. Neither section 64.1300
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.txt
  • Inc., v. AT&T, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 308 (1999) (deciding claim for recovery of tariffed charges without discussing the issue of whether the Commission hears such claims, which neither party raised). We note that the Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 276, and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320. See, e.g. APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25523 (2002) Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges -- which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer-- section 276 of the Act and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-59A1.txt
  • service providers be ``fairly compensated.'' See 47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1). Therefore, coin calls made from a payphone to a One Call Center should be paid in accordance with that payphone's established coin rate, and coinless calls made from a payphone to a One Call Center should be compensated in accordance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 et seq.; see also FRFA, infra, at Section D. See supra n.33. Id. Id. See Pipeline Safety Act § 17. See supra n.35. Id. Id. ; CGA Comments at 2; AOPL at 2; Sunoco at 2. CGA Comments at 2. Id. Notice, 19 FCC Rcd at 9180-81, paras. 18-20; DOT Petition at 2, 15. We note that, subsequently, in its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-71A1.txt
  • publication in the Federal Register By the Commission: INTRODUCTION In this further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM), we consider modification of the default rate of per-payphone compensation that applies when carriers are unable to pay per-call compensation to payphone service providers. This action follows our modification of the default rate of per-call compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of our rules in the report and order released August 12, 2004, in this proceeding. This FNPRM reflects our continued efforts to implement the requirements of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which directs the Commission to ``promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public.'' In pursuit of this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.txt
  • The Application challenges a Memorandum Opinion and Order released by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') granting a liability complaint filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') against Network pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Bureau Liability Order found, inter alia, that Network's failure to compensate APCC for certain completed payphone calls in accordance with section 64.1300 of our rules violated section 201(b) of the Act. As explained below, Network's Application presents no facts or arguments that persuade us that the Bureau made any procedural or substantive errors. Consequently, we affirm the Bureau Liability Order and deny the Application. In doing so, we reiterate that, consistent with common industry parlance, the term ``facilities-based'' carrier, as used in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.txt
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers (``PSPs'') for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1_Erratum.doc
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers (``PSPs'') for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• 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
  • should be reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.txt
  • and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 408 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1992)); OCI Initial Br. at 32-34 (same). See U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24556 n.28 (2004) (``[T]he Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act . . . and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules . . . . Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges - which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer - section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules specifically impose an obligation on the `customer' to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-26A1.txt
  • (FTC Primary Purpose Final Rule); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, CG Docket No. 04-53, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 5931 (2005). CAN-SPAM Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15973, codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(d). The Act establishes a less stringent requirement, ``prior affirmative consent,'' for sending commercial electronic mail messages other than MSCMs. CAN-SPAM Act, Section 5(a)(4), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(4); see also CAN-SPAM Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15943-44, para. 42. The Act defines ``affirmative consent'' as the recipient's express consent to receive a message, either in response to a clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.txt
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). APCC alleges that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on ``Completing Carriers.'' The principal question presented is whether any of the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the amount of $574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.txt
  • Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act Of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3517-18, ¶¶ 11-12 (2007). . APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. Network IP, LLC et al., LLP., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300. Supplemental Response at 4. See APCC Services v. Network IP, 20 FCC Rcd at 2074 ¶ 2, 2077 ¶ 10. Supplemental Response at 3. Supplemental Response at 2-3. Supplemental Response at 3. 47 U.S.C. § 153(20). Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access To The Internet Over Cable And Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4821
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-184A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. § 64.611. 47 C.F.R. § 64.605. See generally Second Internet-based TRS Numbering Order, 24 FCC Rcd 791. 47 C.F.R. § 64.611(a)(2) (emphasis added). We note, for the sake of clarity, that the ``dial around'' functionality mandated for VRS service differs from the ``dial around'' obligations that adhere to payphone and interexchange carriers' services. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 et seq. We have anecdotal evidence that some VRS providers require users to register with them before completing the user's 911 call. . See Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665, 22717-19, paras. 108-110 (1997); see also 47 C.F.R. 20.18(d)(2).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.txt
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. § 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, ¶¶ 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.html
  • Ameritech Michigan; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a Ameritech Ohio; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin; Pacific Bell Telephone Company; and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (collectively, ``Complainants'') against One Call Communications, Inc. (``One Call'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants assert that One Call violated section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by failing to compensate Complainants for ``1+'' calls that originated at Complainants' payphones and were routed to One Call's network. We agree and order One Call to compensate Complainants in the amount of $42,440.91, plus interest, for completed 1+ calls that One Call carried between October 7, 1997 and December 31, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • Verizon that enables it to identify any resellers responsible for compensation. BACKGROUND 2. Section 276 of the Act requires the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' In response, we adopted the following payphone compensation rules: § 64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation. Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract. * * * In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is obligated to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.7 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1645A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1646A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1647A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2503A1.html
  • with prejudice. We find that dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3222A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3223A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • such, TS Interactive allegedly provides interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carries traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.5 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed the formal complaint in this proceeding against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that Defendant was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.6 Specifically, Complainants allege that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.7 In accordance with the Commission's formal complaint procedures, Complainants indicated their desire to have the liability issues resolved prior to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-223A1.html
  • must provide the name of a contact person at the SBR, a telephone number for that person, and the SBR's last known address.3132 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that the Joint Request filed on January 7, 2002 is granted, consistent with this Order. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Joint Request, File No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 7, 2002) (``Joint Request''). 2 The
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • period, TS Interactive provided interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carried traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.7 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed a formal complaint (``formal complaint'') against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial- around compensation'' that TS Interactive was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.8 Specifically, Complainants alleged that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering into a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.9 4. Although TS Interactive made an initial settlement proposal, it eventually decided not to participate further in the liability
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311, that either party, or the Commission on its own motion, may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the re-conversion date FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (Filed Feb. 28, 2003) (''Complaint''). 2 47 U.S.C. 276, 201(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 64.1300, et seq. 4 Letter from Jennifer M. Kashatus, Counsel for Cable & Wireless, to Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, MDRD, File No. EB- 03-MD-004 (filed Dec. 15, 2003) (``Stay Letter''). 5 11 U.S.C. 362. 6 Id.; Stay Letter. 7 Joint Request of Qwest and U.S. South to Extend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Apr. 2, 2004). 8
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • Comm., Inc., v. AT&T, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 308 (1999) (deciding claim for recovery of tariffed charges without discussing the issue of whether the Commission hears such claims, which neither party raised). 28We note that the Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276, and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. See, e.g. APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25523 (2002) Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges -- which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer-- section 276 of the Act and section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'') against Network IP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``NIP'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 Complainants claim that NIP violated sections 201(b), 276, and 416(c) of the Act3 by failing to pay Complainants the compensation required by section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules4 for certain payphone calls completed during the period October 7, 1997 through November 23, 2001 (the ``Relevant Period'').5 For the reasons explained below, we find that NIP's failure to pay compensation to Complainants violates section 64.1300 of the rules and thus sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. Because we grant Complainants' claims under sections 201(b)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • served by granting the waiver to allow some small flexibility in the deadline established by rule 1.718. II. BACKGROUND 3. Complainants are, inter alia, billing and collection agents for numerous independent payphone service providers (``PSPs'').4 NET is a switch-based reseller.5 On behalf of Complainants' PSP principals, the Formal Damages Complaint seeks recovery of ``dial-around'' payphone compensation from Defendants under rule 64.1300,6 which implements (along with other rules) section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').7 4. Under rule 1.718, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the same parties and the same matter, but only if
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1424A1.html
  • Coin, Inc., Kellee Communications Group, Inc., and PayTel Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "PSP Complainants") are payphone services providers. APCC is an agent of the PSP Complainants, and of other payphone service providers, for the billing and collection of dial-around compensation. 3. IDT is a common carrier providing interexchange telecommunications services. IDT is also a "Completing Carrier," as defined by section 64.1300(a) of the Commission's rules. A. The Relevant Law 4. The Commission's payphone compensation rules are designed to ensure, inter alia, that payphone service providers are fairly compensated for coinless calls originated from their payphones. For the period at issue here, those rules require that the last facilities-based long distance carrier in a call path, the "Completing Carrier," compensate the payphone
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • The Application challenges a Memorandum Opinion and Order released by the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") granting a liability complaint filed by Complainants (collectively, "APCC") against Network pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Bureau Liability Order found, inter alia, that Network's failure to compensate APCC for certain completed payphone calls in accordance with section 64.1300 of our rules violated section 201(b) of the Act. As explained below, Network's Application presents no facts or arguments that persuade us that the Bureau made any procedural or substantive errors. Consequently, we affirm the Bureau Liability Order and deny the Application. In doing so, we reiterate that, consistent with common industry parlance, the term "facilities-based" carrier, as used in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-186A1.html
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers ("PSPs") for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 66. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.718, IS DENIED. 67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S: 201-276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as "West Star." 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) ("Notice"). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) ("Notice") See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-07-227A1.html
  • and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 408 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1992)); OCI Initial Br. at 32-34 (same). See U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24556 n.28 (2004) ("[T]he Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act . . . and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules . . . . Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges - which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer - section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules specifically impose an obligation on the `customer' to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-131A1.html
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). APCC alleges that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on "Completing Carriers." The principal question presented is whether any of the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the amount of $574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-97A1.html
  • 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3517-18, P:P: 11-12 (2007). NARUC v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1976). APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. Network IP, LLC et al., LLP., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300. Supplemental Response at 4. See APCC Services v. Network IP, 20 FCC Rcd at 2074 P: 2, 2077 P: 10. Supplemental Response at 3. Supplemental Response at 2-3. Supplemental Response at 3. 47 U.S.C. S: 153(20). Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access To The Internet Over Cable And Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4821
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2028A1.html
  • Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., ("Defendants") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied its allegations. 2. On September 8, 2009, APCC Services filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. In its Motion, APCC Services states that it
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2068A1.html
  • 2009 Released: November 12, 2009 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Next-G for possible violations of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. 2. The Bureau and Next-G have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2068A2.html
  • ) CONSENT DECREE 1. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission" or "FCC") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G" or the "Company"), by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation into whether Next-G violated section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's Rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's Rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. I. DEFINITIONS 2. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1086A1.html
  • of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND 3. Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that "establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone." The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. 4. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. ("APCC") filed against CCI Communications, LLC ("CCI") and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). As explained below, because CCI is a "Completing Carrier" under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. II. BACKGROUND A. Per-Call Payphone Compensation 2. Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1134A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. ("Compass Global"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. 2. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. S: 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, P:P: 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992449.doc
  • Ameritech Illinois, et al., (Ameritech) and U S WEST Communications Corporation (U S WEST) (collectively Complainants) against defendant interexchange carriers (IXCs) Frontier Communications Services, Inc. et al. (Frontier) and MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) (collectively Defendants), pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). Complainants contend that Defendants violated section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by refusing to pay payphone compensation for compensable calls that originated on Complainants' payphones even though Complainants had certified their compliance to the IXCs. Pursuant to section 276 of the Act, and the Commission's implementing rules and orders, IXCs are required to compensate payphone service providers-including LEC payphone service providers-for certain completed intrastate and interstate calls
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd040813.html
  • WTB. Contact: Erin McGrath at (202) 418-7240, Rita Cookmeyer at (202) 418-0660, Linda Ray at (202) 418-2487, Francis Gutierrez or Susan O'Connell at (202) 418-1460 [71]DA-04-2525A1.doc [72]DA-04-2525A1.pdf [73]DA-04-2525A2.pdf [74]DA-04-2525A1.txt [75]DA-04-2525A2.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- REQUEST TO UPDATE DEFAULT COMPENSATION RATE FOR DIAL-AROUND CALLS FROM PAYPHONES. Modified the default rate of payphone compensation for "dial-around" calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the rules. (Dkt No. 03-225). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 07/27/2004 by R&O. (FCC No. 04-182). WCB [76]FCC-04-182A1.doc [77]FCC-04-182A1.pdf [78]FCC-04-182A1.txt ACCESS SPECTRUM, LLC REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 27.60. Granted the Request for Waiver with conditions. Action by: Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 08/12/2004 by MO&O. (DA No. 04-2527). WTB [79]DA-04-2527A1.doc [80]DA-04-2527A1.pdf [81]DA-04-2527A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250952A1.doc 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250952A1.pdf 3.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.html
  • Ameritech Michigan; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a Ameritech Ohio; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin; Pacific Bell Telephone Company; and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (collectively, ``Complainants'') against One Call Communications, Inc. (``One Call'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants assert that One Call violated section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by failing to compensate Complainants for ``1+'' calls that originated at Complainants' payphones and were routed to One Call's network. We agree and order One Call to compensate Complainants in the amount of $42,440.91, plus interest, for completed 1+ calls that One Call carried between October 7, 1997 and December 31, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • Verizon that enables it to identify any resellers responsible for compensation. BACKGROUND 2. Section 276 of the Act requires the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' In response, we adopted the following payphone compensation rules: § 64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation. Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract. * * * In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is obligated to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.7 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1645A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1646A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1647A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2503A1.html
  • with prejudice. We find that dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3222A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3223A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • such, TS Interactive allegedly provides interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carries traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.5 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed the formal complaint in this proceeding against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that Defendant was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.6 Specifically, Complainants allege that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.7 In accordance with the Commission's formal complaint procedures, Complainants indicated their desire to have the liability issues resolved prior to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-223A1.html
  • must provide the name of a contact person at the SBR, a telephone number for that person, and the SBR's last known address.3132 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that the Joint Request filed on January 7, 2002 is granted, consistent with this Order. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Joint Request, File No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 7, 2002) (``Joint Request''). 2 The
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • period, TS Interactive provided interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carried traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.7 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed a formal complaint (``formal complaint'') against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial- around compensation'' that TS Interactive was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.8 Specifically, Complainants alleged that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering into a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.9 4. Although TS Interactive made an initial settlement proposal, it eventually decided not to participate further in the liability
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311, that either party, or the Commission on its own motion, may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the re-conversion date FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (Filed Feb. 28, 2003) (''Complaint''). 2 47 U.S.C. 276, 201(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 64.1300, et seq. 4 Letter from Jennifer M. Kashatus, Counsel for Cable & Wireless, to Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, MDRD, File No. EB- 03-MD-004 (filed Dec. 15, 2003) (``Stay Letter''). 5 11 U.S.C. 362. 6 Id.; Stay Letter. 7 Joint Request of Qwest and U.S. South to Extend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Apr. 2, 2004). 8
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • Comm., Inc., v. AT&T, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 308 (1999) (deciding claim for recovery of tariffed charges without discussing the issue of whether the Commission hears such claims, which neither party raised). 28We note that the Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276, and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. See, e.g. APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25523 (2002) Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges -- which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer-- section 276 of the Act and section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'') against Network IP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``NIP'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 Complainants claim that NIP violated sections 201(b), 276, and 416(c) of the Act3 by failing to pay Complainants the compensation required by section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules4 for certain payphone calls completed during the period October 7, 1997 through November 23, 2001 (the ``Relevant Period'').5 For the reasons explained below, we find that NIP's failure to pay compensation to Complainants violates section 64.1300 of the rules and thus sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. Because we grant Complainants' claims under sections 201(b)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • served by granting the waiver to allow some small flexibility in the deadline established by rule 1.718. II. BACKGROUND 3. Complainants are, inter alia, billing and collection agents for numerous independent payphone service providers (``PSPs'').4 NET is a switch-based reseller.5 On behalf of Complainants' PSP principals, the Formal Damages Complaint seeks recovery of ``dial-around'' payphone compensation from Defendants under rule 64.1300,6 which implements (along with other rules) section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').7 4. Under rule 1.718, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the same parties and the same matter, but only if
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1424A1.html
  • Coin, Inc., Kellee Communications Group, Inc., and PayTel Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "PSP Complainants") are payphone services providers. APCC is an agent of the PSP Complainants, and of other payphone service providers, for the billing and collection of dial-around compensation. 3. IDT is a common carrier providing interexchange telecommunications services. IDT is also a "Completing Carrier," as defined by section 64.1300(a) of the Commission's rules. A. The Relevant Law 4. The Commission's payphone compensation rules are designed to ensure, inter alia, that payphone service providers are fairly compensated for coinless calls originated from their payphones. For the period at issue here, those rules require that the last facilities-based long distance carrier in a call path, the "Completing Carrier," compensate the payphone
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • The Application challenges a Memorandum Opinion and Order released by the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") granting a liability complaint filed by Complainants (collectively, "APCC") against Network pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Bureau Liability Order found, inter alia, that Network's failure to compensate APCC for certain completed payphone calls in accordance with section 64.1300 of our rules violated section 201(b) of the Act. As explained below, Network's Application presents no facts or arguments that persuade us that the Bureau made any procedural or substantive errors. Consequently, we affirm the Bureau Liability Order and deny the Application. In doing so, we reiterate that, consistent with common industry parlance, the term "facilities-based" carrier, as used in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-186A1.html
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers ("PSPs") for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 66. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.718, IS DENIED. 67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S: 201-276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as "West Star." 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) ("Notice"). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) ("Notice") See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-07-227A1.html
  • and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 408 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1992)); OCI Initial Br. at 32-34 (same). See U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24556 n.28 (2004) ("[T]he Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act . . . and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules . . . . Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges - which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer - section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules specifically impose an obligation on the `customer' to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-131A1.html
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). APCC alleges that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on "Completing Carriers." The principal question presented is whether any of the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the amount of $574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-97A1.html
  • 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3517-18, P:P: 11-12 (2007). NARUC v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1976). APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. Network IP, LLC et al., LLP., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300. Supplemental Response at 4. See APCC Services v. Network IP, 20 FCC Rcd at 2074 P: 2, 2077 P: 10. Supplemental Response at 3. Supplemental Response at 2-3. Supplemental Response at 3. 47 U.S.C. S: 153(20). Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access To The Internet Over Cable And Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4821
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2028A1.html
  • Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., ("Defendants") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied its allegations. 2. On September 8, 2009, APCC Services filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. In its Motion, APCC Services states that it
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2068A1.html
  • 2009 Released: November 12, 2009 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Next-G for possible violations of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. 2. The Bureau and Next-G have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2068A2.html
  • ) CONSENT DECREE 1. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission" or "FCC") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G" or the "Company"), by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation into whether Next-G violated section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's Rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's Rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. I. DEFINITIONS 2. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1086A1.html
  • of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND 3. Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that "establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone." The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. 4. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. ("APCC") filed against CCI Communications, LLC ("CCI") and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). As explained below, because CCI is a "Completing Carrier" under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. II. BACKGROUND A. Per-Call Payphone Compensation 2. Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1134A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. ("Compass Global"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. 2. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. S: 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, P:P: 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1204.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1204.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1204.pdf
  • 20,541 (1996); Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21,233 (1996), aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom. Illinois Pub. Telecomm. Ass'n, 117 F.3d 555 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (collectively, Payphone Orders). With respect to paragraph (A), the FCC required interexchange carriers (IXCs) that carry calls originating from payphones to compensate the payphone service provider (PSP). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a) ("[E]very carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract."); Report and Order, Payphone Orders, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,566, p 48; id. at 20,584, p 83. Previously, PSPs had received no revenue for originating certain calls (such as
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1266.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1266.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1266.pdf
  • Payphone Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 20,596 p 110, with Second Reconsideration Order, 16 F.C.C.R. at 8106 p 18. Finally, the Commission noted that PSPs could continue to arrange alternative compensation schemes through private contracts with IXCs and SBRs. Second Reconsideration Order, 16 F.C.C.R. at 8106-07 p 19. The Commission amended its regulations to reflect these changes. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300, 64.1310 (2001). Denying reconsideration, the Commission rejected the IXCs' objections to the new rule. Third Order on Reconsideration and Order on Clarification, 16 F.C.C.R. 20,922 (2001). Sprint now petitions the court for review. II. Sprint's contention that the Commission erred by failing to issue a new NPRM prior to promulgating a new rule in the Second Order on Reconsideration is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/archives/whatsnewarchive04.html
  • [488]Acrobat Adelstein Statement: [489]Word | [490]Acrobat 8/13/04 Domestic Section 214 Application Filed for Transfer of Control of ICG Communications, Inc. and its Operating Subsidiaries to MCCC ICG Holdings, LLC Public Notice: [491]Word | [492]Acrobat 8/12/04 Request to Update Dial-Around Compensation Rate for Dial-Around Calls from Payphones Modified the default rate of payphone compensation for "dial-around" calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the FCC's rules. WC Docket No. 03-225 Report & Order: [493]Word | [494]Acrobat 8/10/04 WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU NETWORK CHANGE NOTIFICATION FILED BY BELLSOUTH Public Notice: [495]Word | [496]Acrobat 8/10/04 WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SHORT TERM NETWORK CHANGE NOTIFICATION FILED BY SBC COMMUNICATIONS Public Notice: [497]Word | [498]Acrobat 8/9/04 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers/IMPLEMENTATION
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html
  • pleading cycle established by the order designating issues for investigation in this matter. Denied Alascom, Inc.'s Motion for Extension. By Order Extending Pleading Cycle. (Dkt No. 95-182). Reply Comments Due: 10/15/2004. [92][Word] [93][Acrobat] 8/12/2004 Order: Request To Update Default Compensation Rate For Dial-Around Calls From Payphones. Modified the default rate of payphone compensation for "dial-around" calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the rules. (Dkt No. 03-225). [94][Word] [95][Acrobat] 8/6/2004 Public Notice:Comment Sought On Illinois Public Telecommunications Association's Petition For A Declaratory Ruling Concerning Refund Of Payphone Line Rate Charges. (Dkt No 96-128). Comments Due: 08/26/2004. Reply Comments Due: 09/07/2004. [96][Word] [97][Acrobat] 8/5/2004 Public Notice:Parties Asked To Refresh Record Regarding Reconsideration Of Price Cap Performance Review For Local Exchange Carriers 4th
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. § 201-276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as ``West Star.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) (``Notice''). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) (``Notice'') See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.pdf
  • Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., (``Defendants'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied its allegations. On September 8, 2009, APCC Services filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. In its Motion, APCC Services states that it has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.pdf
  • 9, 2009 Released: November 12, 2009 By the Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Next-G Communication, Inc. (``Next-G''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Next-G for possible violations of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. The Bureau and Next-G have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A2.pdf
  • No. 0010717874 CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'' or ``FCC'') and Next-G Communication, Inc. (``Next-G'' or the ``Company''), by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation into whether Next-G violated section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's Rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's Rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. I. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: ``Act'' means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.pdf
  • switch of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on October
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf
  • 28, 2010 Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. (``APCC'') filed against CCI Communications, LLC (``CCI'') and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). As explained below, because CCI is a ``Completing Carrier'' under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. BACKGROUND Per-Call Payphone Compensation Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to ensure that all
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. (``Compass Global''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-14A1.pdf
  • should be reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.pdf
  • and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 408 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1992)); OCI Initial Br. at 32-34 (same). See U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24556 n.28 (2004) (``[T]he Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act . . . and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules . . . . Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges - which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer - section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules specifically impose an obligation on the `customer' to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.pdf
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). APCC alleges that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on ``Completing Carriers.'' The principal question presented is whether any of the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the amount of $574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.pdf
  • Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act Of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3517-18, ¶¶ 11-12 (2007). . APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. Network IP, LLC et al., LLP., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300. Supplemental Response at 4. See APCC Services v. Network IP, 20 FCC Rcd at 2074 ¶ 2, 2077 ¶ 10. Supplemental Response at 3. Supplemental Response at 2-3. Supplemental Response at 3. 47 U.S.C. § 153(20). Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access To The Internet Over Cable And Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4821
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. § 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, ¶¶ 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2162A1.txt
  • Ameritech Michigan; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a Ameritech Ohio; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin; Pacific Bell Telephone Company; and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (collectively, ``Complainants'') against One Call Communications, Inc. (``One Call'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants assert that One Call violated section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by failing to compensate Complainants for ``1+'' calls that originated at Complainants' payphones and were routed to One Call's network. We agree and order One Call to compensate Complainants in the amount of $42,440.91, plus interest, for completed 1+ calls that One Call carried between October 7, 1997 and December 31, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1470A1.txt
  • within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 208. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320. These
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1645A1.txt
  • defendants from delay. We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1646A1.txt
  • defendants from delay. We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1647A1.txt
  • defendants from delay. We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2381A1.txt
  • updating the cost model the Commission adopted in Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2545 (1999) (Third Report and Order). APCC states that it is seeking only a change in the rate of $0.24 per call of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(c) and is not seeking either a new rule or any other revisions to this rule. APCC asserts that substantial changes to market conditions since the Commission adopted the Third Report and Order justifies an increase to the $0.24 rate. See Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 2647-48. On September 4, 2002, the RBOC Coalition (BellSouth Public Communications, Inc.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2503A1.txt
  • with prejudice. We find that dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 208. See 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3222A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3223A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3547A1.txt
  • as such, TS Interactive allegedly provides interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carries traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed the formal complaint in this proceeding against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that Defendant was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Specifically, Complainants allege that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999. In accordance with the Commission's formal complaint procedures, Complainants indicated their desire to have the liability issues resolved prior to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1682A1.txt
  • the relevant period, TS Interactive provided interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carried traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed a formal complaint (``formal complaint'') against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that TS Interactive was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Specifically, Complainants alleged that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering into a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999. Although TS Interactive made an initial settlement proposal, it eventually decided not to participate further in the liability phase
• 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
  • C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that either party, or the Commission on its own motion, may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the re-conversion date FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (Filed Feb. 28, 2003) (''Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. §§ 276, 201(b). 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300, et seq. Letter from Jennifer M. Kashatus, Counsel for Cable & Wireless, to Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, MDRD, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Dec. 15, 2003) (``Stay Letter''). 11 U.S.C. § 362. Id.; Stay Letter. Joint Request of Qwest and U.S. South to Extend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Apr. 2, 2004). Joint Request For Dismissal With
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2001A1.txt
  • September 30, 2004, we will clarify this rule at a later date. The rules define a ``Completing Carrier'' to mean ``a long distance carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call or a local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call.'' 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a). 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320. See OMB Approval No. 3060-1046 (May 5, 2004). 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1310(a), 64.1320. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 hj hä + , 0 A G H T f ˆ " ß ý hä ÿ‰PNG r
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.txt
  • on an interim basis until the new rules became effective. The Commission received OMB approval on May 5, 2004, and the Payphone Order and the new rules became effective on July 1, 2004. In addition, the Commission adopted a Report and Order on July 27, 2004, revising the default rate of payphone compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the rules. Comments No party filed comments addressing Part 64, subpart M. Recommendation WCB staff finds that these rules remain necessary in the public interest because they facilitate competition in the provision of payphone service and ensure that PSPs, which provide a necessary public service by making available payphones for public use, receive fair compensation for calls made from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.txt
  • Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'') against Network IP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``NIP'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants claim that NIP violated sections 201(b), 276, and 416(c) of the Act by failing to pay Complainants the compensation required by section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules for certain payphone calls completed during the period October 7, 1997 through November 23, 2001 (the ``Relevant Period''). For the reasons explained below, we find that NIP's failure to pay compensation to Complainants violates section 64.1300 of the rules and thus sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. Because we grant Complainants' claims under sections 201(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2796A1.txt
  • America of Salt Lake City, Inc. Answer to Formal Complaint of APCC Services, Inc., et al., FCC File No. EB-05-MD-018 (filed September 23, 2005). Reply of APCC Services, Inc. to Joint Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 05-198 (filed Aug. 22, 2005) (Reply to Joint Opposition) at 2. Reply to Joint Opposition at 3 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-1320). Id. at 3 (citing U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel America of Salt Lake City, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 24,552, 24,556, n.28 (2004)). Rather, APCC argues that the appellants in SBC v. FCC sought additional protections beyond enforcement of the Commission's rules, which the D.C. Circuit found unnecessary. Reply to Joint Opposition at 4. APCC concludes that the very adoption of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2819A1.txt
  • better served by granting the waiver to allow some small flexibility in the deadline established by rule 1.718. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are, inter alia, billing and collection agents for numerous independent payphone service providers (``PSPs''). NET is a switch-based reseller. On behalf of Complainants' PSP principals, the Formal Damages Complaint seeks recovery of ``dial-around'' payphone compensation from Defendants under rule 64.1300, which implements (along with other rules) section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Under rule 1.718, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the same parties and the same matter, but only if the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1424A1.txt
  • Coast Coin, Inc., Kellee Communications Group, Inc., and PayTel Communications, Inc. (collectively, the ``PSP Complainants'') are payphone services providers. APCC is an agent of the PSP Complainants, and of other payphone service providers, for the billing and collection of dial-around compensation. IDT is a common carrier providing interexchange telecommunications services. IDT is also a ``Completing Carrier,'' as defined by section 64.1300(a) of the Commission's rules. The Relevant Law The Commission's payphone compensation rules are designed to ensure, inter alia, that payphone service providers are fairly compensated for coinless calls originated from their payphones. For the period at issue here, those rules require that the last facilities-based long distance carrier in a call path, the ``Completing Carrier,'' compensate the payphone service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1862A1.txt
  • information regarding this public notice contact Denise Coca, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-0574. A Completing Carrier is a long distance carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call or a local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a). An Intermediate Carrier is a facilities-based long distance carrier that switches payphone calls to other facilities-based long distance carriers. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(b). 47 U.S.C. § 276. See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19975 (2003) (Payphone Order); Order on Reconsideration,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.txt
  • market entry and exit requirements and ensure that all payphones provide free access to dialtone, emergency calls, and telecommunications relay service calls for the hearing disabled. Need: This subpart encourages competition in the payphone industry and promotes the deployment of payphone services as directed by section 276 of the Communications Act. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 276. Section Number and Title: 64.1300 Payphone compensation obligation. 64.1310 Payphone compensation procedures. 64.1320 Payphone call tracking system audits. 64.1330 State review of payphone entry and exit regulations and public interest payphones. 64.1340 Right to negotiate. SUBPART O -- INTERSTATE PAY-PER-CALL AND OTHER INFORMATION SERVICES Brief Description: Part 64, Subpart O implements section 228 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Subpart O mandates that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.txt
  • of proposed rulemaking on March 14, 2005 to consider modification of the default rate of per-payphone compensation that applies when carriers are unable to pay per-call compensation to payphone service providers. This action followed the Commission's modification, in a report and order released August 12, 2004, of the default rate of per-call compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission also issued an Order on Reconsideration clarifying and modifying the Payphone Compensation Rules on October 22, 2004. Comments No party filed comments addressing Part 64, subpart M. Recommendation WCB staff does not find that the rules are ``no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of
• 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
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. § 201-276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.txt
  • Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act), CG Docket No. 04-53 11/30/10 3060-1079 Sec. 15.240, Radio Frequency Identification Equipment (RFID) 02/28/11 3060-1080 Collections for the Prevention or Elimination of Interference and for the Reconfiguration of the 800 MHz Band 08/31/11 3060-1081 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45 10/31/08 3060-1083 Secs. 64.1300 through 64.1340 06/30/11 3060-1084 Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers (CARE), CG Docket No. 02-386 06/30/10 3060-1085 Collection of Location Information, Provision of Notice and Reporting on Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) E911 Compliance 01/31/09 3060-1086 Secs. 74.786, 74.787, 74.790, 74.794 and 74.796 07/31/11 3060-1087 Section 15.615, Broadband Over Power
• 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
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as ``West Star.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) (``Notice''). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• 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
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• 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
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) (``Notice''). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• 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
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) (``Notice''). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• 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
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. 47 C.F.R. § 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) (``Notice'') See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1792A1.txt
  • July 14, 2008. APCC and Applicants submitted additional filings during the pendency of this proceeding. Implementation of Further Streamlining Measures for Domestic Section 214 Authorizations, CC Docket No. 01-150, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 5517, 5529, para. 22 (2002). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03. APCC Comments at 1-4. APCC Comments at 5-8 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 276; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300). On February 9, 2009, APCC filed a formal complaint under section 208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 208, against True LD and its related companies for failure to pay dial around compensation. APCC Services, Inc. v. True LD, LLC, West Star Telecommunications, LLC, and Global Access LD, LLC, a/k/a Global Access Telecom, a/k/a Global Access, Inc., Formal Complaint, File
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2028A1.txt
  • Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., (``Defendants'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied its allegations. On September 8, 2009, APCC Services filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. In its Motion, APCC Services states that it has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2068A1.txt
  • November9, 2009 Released: November 12, 2009 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Next-G for possible violations of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"),1and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules,2relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act3and section 63.18 of the Commission's rules,4relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. 2. The Bureauand Next-G 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1086A1.txt
  • switch of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1192A1.txt
  • 28, 2010 Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. (``APCC'') filed against CCI Communications, LLC (``CCI'') and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). As explained below, because CCI is a ``Completing Carrier'' under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. BACKGROUND Per-Call Payphone Compensation Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to ensure that all
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.txt
  • Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act), CG Docket No. 04-53 11/30/13 3060-1079 Sec. 15.240, Radio Frequency Identification Equipment (RFID) 03/31/11 3060-1080 Collections for the Prevention or Elimination of Interference and for the Reconfiguration of the 800 MHz Band 08/31/11 3060-1081 Secs. 54.202, 54.209, 54.307, 54.313, 54.314, and 54.809 09/30/11 3060-1083 Secs. 64.1300 through 64.1340 06/30/11 3060-1084 Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers (CARE), CG Docket No. 02-386 06/30/13 3060-1085 Sec. 9.5, Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) E911 Compliance 06/30/12 3060-1086 Secs. 74.786, 74.787, 74.790, 74.794 and 74.796 10/31/12 3060-1087 Sec. 15.615 07/31/11 3060-1088 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1134A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. (``Compass Global''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1450A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a Pacific Communications and Lake Country Communications, Inc. (collectively, GCB), pursuant to section 1.2 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, GCB requests that the Commission issue a declaratory ruling to respond to a referral from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The district court is presiding over a payphone compensation dispute involving GCB. Section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules, which implements section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), provides that ``a Completing Carrier that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call from a switch that the Completing Carrier either owns or leases shall compensate the payphone service provider for that call at a rate agreed upon by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262861A1.txt
  • 03-225 Dial-Around Calls from Payphones ) ERRATUM Released: December 22, 2005 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: 1. On August 12, 2004, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 04-182, in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum makes two corrections to that Report and Order. 2. The first sentence of paragraph 1 is corrected so that it refers to section 64.1300(d), rather than section 64.1300(c). 3. Appendix A of the Report and Order is replaced by the Appendix A attached to this Erratum. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 276, and sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291209A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Report No. 2889 June 5, 2009 CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REFERENCE INFORMATION CENTER ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ RM NO. RULES SEC. PETITIONER DATE RECEIVED NATURE OF PETITION 11535 64.1300- Dollar Phone 05/12/2009 In the Matter of Petition for 1340 Corporation Rulemaking with Regard to Dial Around Compensation (Filed By: James A. Stenger Chadbourne & Parke LLP 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036) ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________FCC PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 /
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-109A1.txt
  • customers must comply with the Commission's interpretation of the payphone compensation rules as articulated in the Payphone Order on Reconsideration and interpreted in Bell Atlantic-Frontier Order; namely, the first facilities-based carrier must pay unless the reseller has identified itself to the first facilities-based carrier as being responsible for paying compensation . As set forth in Appendix B, we revise section 64.1300(a) to impose compensation payment responsibility upon the first facilities-based interexchange carrier to which the LEC routes a compensable coinless payphone call. Similarly, we revise section 64.1310(a) to impose upon the same facilities-based carrier the responsibility to track or arrange for tracking of calls, and to send back to the PSP a statement indicating the number of completed toll-free and access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-110A1.txt
  • Verizon that enables it to identify any resellers responsible for compensation. BACKGROUND 2. Section 276 of the Act requires the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' In response, we adopted the following payphone compensation rules: § 64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation. Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract. * * * In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is obligated to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-355A1.txt
  • transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47 U.S.C. § 226(a)(2). Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 6122 (1998) (Second Report and Order). Id. at 6127-6128. Today, payphone owners are compensated for such dial around calls. See 47 CFR § 64.1300 et seq. Pub. L. No. 101-435, 104 Stat. 986 (1990) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 226). See 47 U.S.C. § 226(c)(1)(B) (providing that each aggregator must ``ensure that each of its telephones presubscribed to a provider of operator services allows the consumer to use `800' and `950' access code numbers to obtain access to the provider of operator services desired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-223A1.txt
  • WorldCom must provide the name of a contact person at the SBR, a telephone number for that person, and the SBR's last known address. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that the Joint Request filed on January 7, 2002 is granted, consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Joint Request, File No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 7, 2002) (``Joint Request''). The original named complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-119A1.txt
  • at 7; APCC Reply Comments at 5. Cable & Wireless Comments at 2-3; MCI WorldCom Comments at 3-4; TRA Comments at 6. Second Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd at 8103, para. 8. Id. at 8106-07, paras. 15-16. See Second Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd. at 8108, para.21, App. B (setting forth amended rules); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300, 64.1310(a), (b) (2002). Sprint, 315 F.3d at 372, 378. Id. at 372, 378. Second Order on Reconsideration at para. 8. See Third Order on Reconsideration. Second Order on Reconsideration at para. 10. See Brief filed for Sprint Corp. et al., No. 01-1266 (D.C. Circuit Mar. 11, 2002) (``The record shows that. . . PSPs have had trouble collecting from SBRs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.txt
  • 1, 4, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 226, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§151, 154, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 226, and 276, IT IS ORDERED that the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 64, IS AMENDED by revising sections 64.1300(a) and (b), 64.1310(a), (b), (c), and (g), and 64.1320(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), as set forth in Appendix C of this Report and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for good cause found above, the interim rules set forth in Appendix B ARE EFFECTIVE upon their publication in the Federal Register and that the portions of this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-265A1.txt
  • since the Third Report and Order, requiring a revisitation of the $.24 rate. On September 30, 2002, the Wireline Competition Bureau sought comment on the petitions. In this proceeding, we grant petitions for rulemaking filed by payphone service providers (``PSPs'') and request comment on whether to modify the default rate of payphone compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of our rules. This action reflects our continued efforts to implement the requirements of section 276 of the Act, as amended (``Act''), which directs the Commission to ``promote the widespread development of payphone services to the benefit of the general public.'' In pursuit of this mandate, section 276(b)(1) also directs the Commission to establish ``a per call compensation plan to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-182A1.txt
  • 80 G. Use of a "Top Down" Test of Validity 81 H. Caller Pays 86 IV. Conclusion 92 V. Procedural Matters 93 VI. Ordering Clauses 94 APPENDIX A -- Final Rule APPENDIX B -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) iNTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY In this order, we modify the default rate of payphone compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of our rules. This action reflects our continued efforts to implement the requirements of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which directs the Commission to ``promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public.'' In pursuit of this mandate, section 276(b)(1) also directs the Commission to establish ``a per call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-251A1.txt
  • event this report is not filed, liability for calls completed by a SBR should default to the first facilities-based long distance carrier that received the payphone call from the originating LEC. However, the rules and the Report and Order clearly place liability only on the SBR, if it is the facilities-based long distance carrier that completes the call. Specifically, section 64.1300(a) states that, in instances where there is more than one long distance facilities-based carrier in a call path, the long distance facilities-based carrier that completes the call, defined in that section as the ``Completing Carrier,'' is liable for payphone compensation. This declaratory language makes clear that the last switch-based long distance carrier is always liable for compensation. Neither section 64.1300
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-284A1.txt
  • Inc., v. AT&T, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 308 (1999) (deciding claim for recovery of tariffed charges without discussing the issue of whether the Commission hears such claims, which neither party raised). We note that the Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 276, and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, C.F.R. §§ 64.1300-64.1320. See, e.g. APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25523 (2002) Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges -- which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer-- section 276 of the Act and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-59A1.txt
  • service providers be ``fairly compensated.'' See 47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1). Therefore, coin calls made from a payphone to a One Call Center should be paid in accordance with that payphone's established coin rate, and coinless calls made from a payphone to a One Call Center should be compensated in accordance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 et seq.; see also FRFA, infra, at Section D. See supra n.33. Id. Id. See Pipeline Safety Act § 17. See supra n.35. Id. Id. ; CGA Comments at 2; AOPL at 2; Sunoco at 2. CGA Comments at 2. Id. Notice, 19 FCC Rcd at 9180-81, paras. 18-20; DOT Petition at 2, 15. We note that, subsequently, in its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-71A1.txt
  • publication in the Federal Register By the Commission: INTRODUCTION In this further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM), we consider modification of the default rate of per-payphone compensation that applies when carriers are unable to pay per-call compensation to payphone service providers. This action follows our modification of the default rate of per-call compensation for ``dial-around'' calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of our rules in the report and order released August 12, 2004, in this proceeding. This FNPRM reflects our continued efforts to implement the requirements of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which directs the Commission to ``promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public.'' In pursuit of this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-139A1.txt
  • The Application challenges a Memorandum Opinion and Order released by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') granting a liability complaint filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') against Network pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Bureau Liability Order found, inter alia, that Network's failure to compensate APCC for certain completed payphone calls in accordance with section 64.1300 of our rules violated section 201(b) of the Act. As explained below, Network's Application presents no facts or arguments that persuade us that the Bureau made any procedural or substantive errors. Consequently, we affirm the Bureau Liability Order and deny the Application. In doing so, we reiterate that, consistent with common industry parlance, the term ``facilities-based'' carrier, as used in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.txt
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers (``PSPs'') for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1_Erratum.doc
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers (``PSPs'') for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• 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
  • should be reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-227A1.txt
  • and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 408 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1992)); OCI Initial Br. at 32-34 (same). See U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24556 n.28 (2004) (``[T]he Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act . . . and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules . . . . Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges - which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer - section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules specifically impose an obligation on the `customer' to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-26A1.txt
  • (FTC Primary Purpose Final Rule); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, CG Docket No. 04-53, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 5931 (2005). CAN-SPAM Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15973, codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(d). The Act establishes a less stringent requirement, ``prior affirmative consent,'' for sending commercial electronic mail messages other than MSCMs. CAN-SPAM Act, Section 5(a)(4), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(4); see also CAN-SPAM Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15943-44, para. 42. The Act defines ``affirmative consent'' as the recipient's express consent to receive a message, either in response to a clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-131A1.txt
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). APCC alleges that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on ``Completing Carriers.'' The principal question presented is whether any of the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the amount of $574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.txt
  • Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act Of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3517-18, ¶¶ 11-12 (2007). . APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. Network IP, LLC et al., LLP., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300. Supplemental Response at 4. See APCC Services v. Network IP, 20 FCC Rcd at 2074 ¶ 2, 2077 ¶ 10. Supplemental Response at 3. Supplemental Response at 2-3. Supplemental Response at 3. 47 U.S.C. § 153(20). Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access To The Internet Over Cable And Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4821
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-184A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. § 64.611. 47 C.F.R. § 64.605. See generally Second Internet-based TRS Numbering Order, 24 FCC Rcd 791. 47 C.F.R. § 64.611(a)(2) (emphasis added). We note, for the sake of clarity, that the ``dial around'' functionality mandated for VRS service differs from the ``dial around'' obligations that adhere to payphone and interexchange carriers' services. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 et seq. We have anecdotal evidence that some VRS providers require users to register with them before completing the user's 911 call. . See Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665, 22717-19, paras. 108-110 (1997); see also 47 C.F.R. 20.18(d)(2).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-5A1.txt
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. § 276. 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, ¶¶ 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.html
  • Ameritech Michigan; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a Ameritech Ohio; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin; Pacific Bell Telephone Company; and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (collectively, ``Complainants'') against One Call Communications, Inc. (``One Call'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants assert that One Call violated section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by failing to compensate Complainants for ``1+'' calls that originated at Complainants' payphones and were routed to One Call's network. We agree and order One Call to compensate Complainants in the amount of $42,440.91, plus interest, for completed 1+ calls that One Call carried between October 7, 1997 and December 31, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • Verizon that enables it to identify any resellers responsible for compensation. BACKGROUND 2. Section 276 of the Act requires the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' In response, we adopted the following payphone compensation rules: § 64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation. Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract. * * * In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is obligated to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.7 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1645A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1646A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1647A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2503A1.html
  • with prejudice. We find that dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3222A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3223A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • such, TS Interactive allegedly provides interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carries traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.5 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed the formal complaint in this proceeding against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that Defendant was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.6 Specifically, Complainants allege that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.7 In accordance with the Commission's formal complaint procedures, Complainants indicated their desire to have the liability issues resolved prior to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-223A1.html
  • must provide the name of a contact person at the SBR, a telephone number for that person, and the SBR's last known address.3132 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that the Joint Request filed on January 7, 2002 is granted, consistent with this Order. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Joint Request, File No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 7, 2002) (``Joint Request''). 2 The
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • period, TS Interactive provided interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carried traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.7 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed a formal complaint (``formal complaint'') against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial- around compensation'' that TS Interactive was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.8 Specifically, Complainants alleged that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering into a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.9 4. Although TS Interactive made an initial settlement proposal, it eventually decided not to participate further in the liability
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311, that either party, or the Commission on its own motion, may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the re-conversion date FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (Filed Feb. 28, 2003) (''Complaint''). 2 47 U.S.C. 276, 201(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 64.1300, et seq. 4 Letter from Jennifer M. Kashatus, Counsel for Cable & Wireless, to Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, MDRD, File No. EB- 03-MD-004 (filed Dec. 15, 2003) (``Stay Letter''). 5 11 U.S.C. 362. 6 Id.; Stay Letter. 7 Joint Request of Qwest and U.S. South to Extend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Apr. 2, 2004). 8
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • Comm., Inc., v. AT&T, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 308 (1999) (deciding claim for recovery of tariffed charges without discussing the issue of whether the Commission hears such claims, which neither party raised). 28We note that the Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276, and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. See, e.g. APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25523 (2002) Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges -- which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer-- section 276 of the Act and section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'') against Network IP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``NIP'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 Complainants claim that NIP violated sections 201(b), 276, and 416(c) of the Act3 by failing to pay Complainants the compensation required by section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules4 for certain payphone calls completed during the period October 7, 1997 through November 23, 2001 (the ``Relevant Period'').5 For the reasons explained below, we find that NIP's failure to pay compensation to Complainants violates section 64.1300 of the rules and thus sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. Because we grant Complainants' claims under sections 201(b)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • served by granting the waiver to allow some small flexibility in the deadline established by rule 1.718. II. BACKGROUND 3. Complainants are, inter alia, billing and collection agents for numerous independent payphone service providers (``PSPs'').4 NET is a switch-based reseller.5 On behalf of Complainants' PSP principals, the Formal Damages Complaint seeks recovery of ``dial-around'' payphone compensation from Defendants under rule 64.1300,6 which implements (along with other rules) section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').7 4. Under rule 1.718, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the same parties and the same matter, but only if
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1424A1.html
  • Coin, Inc., Kellee Communications Group, Inc., and PayTel Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "PSP Complainants") are payphone services providers. APCC is an agent of the PSP Complainants, and of other payphone service providers, for the billing and collection of dial-around compensation. 3. IDT is a common carrier providing interexchange telecommunications services. IDT is also a "Completing Carrier," as defined by section 64.1300(a) of the Commission's rules. A. The Relevant Law 4. The Commission's payphone compensation rules are designed to ensure, inter alia, that payphone service providers are fairly compensated for coinless calls originated from their payphones. For the period at issue here, those rules require that the last facilities-based long distance carrier in a call path, the "Completing Carrier," compensate the payphone
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • The Application challenges a Memorandum Opinion and Order released by the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") granting a liability complaint filed by Complainants (collectively, "APCC") against Network pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Bureau Liability Order found, inter alia, that Network's failure to compensate APCC for certain completed payphone calls in accordance with section 64.1300 of our rules violated section 201(b) of the Act. As explained below, Network's Application presents no facts or arguments that persuade us that the Bureau made any procedural or substantive errors. Consequently, we affirm the Bureau Liability Order and deny the Application. In doing so, we reiterate that, consistent with common industry parlance, the term "facilities-based" carrier, as used in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-186A1.html
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers ("PSPs") for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 66. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.718, IS DENIED. 67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S: 201-276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as "West Star." 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) ("Notice"). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) ("Notice") See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-07-227A1.html
  • and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 408 (Com. Carrier Bur. 1992)); OCI Initial Br. at 32-34 (same). See U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24556 n.28 (2004) ("[T]he Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act . . . and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules . . . . Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges - which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer - section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules specifically impose an obligation on the `customer' to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-131A1.html
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). APCC alleges that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on "Completing Carriers." The principal question presented is whether any of the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the amount of $574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-97A1.html
  • 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3517-18, P:P: 11-12 (2007). NARUC v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1976). APCC Services, Inc. et al. v. Network IP, LLC et al., LLP., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1300. Supplemental Response at 4. See APCC Services v. Network IP, 20 FCC Rcd at 2074 P: 2, 2077 P: 10. Supplemental Response at 3. Supplemental Response at 2-3. Supplemental Response at 3. 47 U.S.C. S: 153(20). Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access To The Internet Over Cable And Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4821
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2028A1.html
  • Phone Corp., RespOrgUSA, Inc., Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., Dollar Phone Services, Inc., and Global Switching, Inc., ("Defendants") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 1.720 et seq. of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated sections 201(b) and 276(b) of the Act and sections 64.1300 and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules by failing to pay dial-around compensation to payphone service providers represented by APCC Services. On July 16, 2009, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint and in which they denied its allegations. 2. On September 8, 2009, APCC Services filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. In its Motion, APCC Services states that it
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2068A1.html
  • 2009 Released: November 12, 2009 By the Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Next-G for possible violations of section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. 2. The Bureau and Next-G have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2068A2.html
  • ) CONSENT DECREE 1. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission" or "FCC") and Next-G Communication, Inc. ("Next-G" or the "Company"), by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation into whether Next-G violated section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's Rules, relating to payphone compensation, and section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of the Commission's Rules, relating to the provision of international telecommunications service. I. DEFINITIONS 2. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1086A1.html
  • of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND 3. Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that "establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone." The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. 4. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. ("APCC") filed against CCI Communications, LLC ("CCI") and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). As explained below, because CCI is a "Completing Carrier" under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. II. BACKGROUND A. Per-Call Payphone Compensation 2. Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1134A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. ("Compass Global"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. 2. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. S: 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, P:P: 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992449.doc
  • Ameritech Illinois, et al., (Ameritech) and U S WEST Communications Corporation (U S WEST) (collectively Complainants) against defendant interexchange carriers (IXCs) Frontier Communications Services, Inc. et al. (Frontier) and MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) (collectively Defendants), pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). Complainants contend that Defendants violated section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by refusing to pay payphone compensation for compensable calls that originated on Complainants' payphones even though Complainants had certified their compliance to the IXCs. Pursuant to section 276 of the Act, and the Commission's implementing rules and orders, IXCs are required to compensate payphone service providers-including LEC payphone service providers-for certain completed intrastate and interstate calls
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd040813.html
  • WTB. Contact: Erin McGrath at (202) 418-7240, Rita Cookmeyer at (202) 418-0660, Linda Ray at (202) 418-2487, Francis Gutierrez or Susan O'Connell at (202) 418-1460 [71]DA-04-2525A1.doc [72]DA-04-2525A1.pdf [73]DA-04-2525A2.pdf [74]DA-04-2525A1.txt [75]DA-04-2525A2.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- REQUEST TO UPDATE DEFAULT COMPENSATION RATE FOR DIAL-AROUND CALLS FROM PAYPHONES. Modified the default rate of payphone compensation for "dial-around" calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the rules. (Dkt No. 03-225). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 07/27/2004 by R&O. (FCC No. 04-182). WCB [76]FCC-04-182A1.doc [77]FCC-04-182A1.pdf [78]FCC-04-182A1.txt ACCESS SPECTRUM, LLC REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 27.60. Granted the Request for Waiver with conditions. Action by: Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 08/12/2004 by MO&O. (DA No. 04-2527). WTB [79]DA-04-2527A1.doc [80]DA-04-2527A1.pdf [81]DA-04-2527A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250952A1.doc 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250952A1.pdf 3.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012162.html
  • Ameritech Michigan; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a Ameritech Ohio; Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin; Pacific Bell Telephone Company; and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (collectively, ``Complainants'') against One Call Communications, Inc. (``One Call'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Complainants assert that One Call violated section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act and section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules by failing to compensate Complainants for ``1+'' calls that originated at Complainants' payphones and were routed to One Call's network. We agree and order One Call to compensate Complainants in the amount of $42,440.91, plus interest, for completed 1+ calls that One Call carried between October 7, 1997 and December 31, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Complainants are
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01110.html
  • Verizon that enables it to identify any resellers responsible for compensation. BACKGROUND 2. Section 276 of the Act requires the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.'' In response, we adopted the following payphone compensation rules: § 64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation. Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract. * * * In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is obligated to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1470A1.html
  • within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The supplemental complaint for damages must comply with the requirements set forth in section 1.722 of the Commission's rules.7 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS GRANTED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. These rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1645A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1646A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1647A1.html
  • defendants from delay.9 We caution Complainants, however, that, should they refile a Formal Complaint, future instances of failing to adhere to our rulings will result in dismissal with prejudice. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2503A1.html
  • with prejudice. We find that dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the public interest by eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the Commission. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320, and authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.720-1.736, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3222A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3223A1.html
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and of the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radhika V. Karmarkar Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 208.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3547A1.html
  • such, TS Interactive allegedly provides interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carries traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.5 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed the formal complaint in this proceeding against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial-around compensation'' that Defendant was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.6 Specifically, Complainants allege that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.7 In accordance with the Commission's formal complaint procedures, Complainants indicated their desire to have the liability issues resolved prior to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-223A1.html
  • must provide the name of a contact person at the SBR, a telephone number for that person, and the SBR's last known address.3132 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and sections 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 64.1300, and 64.1310, that the Joint Request filed on January 7, 2002 is granted, consistent with this Order. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Joint Request, File No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 7, 2002) (``Joint Request''). 2 The
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1682A1.html
  • period, TS Interactive provided interstate and intrastate telephone toll service, and carried traffic originating from payphones owned or represented by Complainants.7 3. On April 19, 2002, Complainants filed a formal complaint (``formal complaint'') against TS Interactive seeking to recover unpaid ``dial- around compensation'' that TS Interactive was allegedly required to pay Complainants under section 276 of the Act and section 64.1300 et seq. of the Commission's rules.8 Specifically, Complainants alleged that TS Interactive failed to pay them dial-around compensation, despite entering into a contract with Global Crossing in which TS Interactive assumed the responsibility to make such payments after February 28, 1999.9 4. Although TS Interactive made an initial settlement proposal, it eventually decided not to participate further in the liability
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1809A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311, that either party, or the Commission on its own motion, may, upon a showing of good cause, move for an extension of the re-conversion date FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (Filed Feb. 28, 2003) (''Complaint''). 2 47 U.S.C. 276, 201(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 64.1300, et seq. 4 Letter from Jennifer M. Kashatus, Counsel for Cable & Wireless, to Anthony J. DeLaurentis, Attorney, MDRD, File No. EB- 03-MD-004 (filed Dec. 15, 2003) (``Stay Letter''). 5 11 U.S.C. 362. 6 Id.; Stay Letter. 7 Joint Request of Qwest and U.S. South to Extend Briefing Schedule Due to Settlement, File No. EB-03-MD-004 (filed Apr. 2, 2004). 8
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-284A1.html
  • Comm., Inc., v. AT&T, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 308 (1999) (deciding claim for recovery of tariffed charges without discussing the issue of whether the Commission hears such claims, which neither party raised). 28We note that the Commission does entertain claims to recover unpaid payphone compensation pursuant to section 276 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 276, and sections 64.1300 through 64.1320 of the Commission's rules, C.F.R. 64.1300-64.1320. See, e.g. APCC Services, Inc., et al., v. TS Interactive, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25523 (2002) Unlike the statutory provisions and Commission rules regarding access charges -- which speak only to the duties of the charging carrier and not to the duties of the customer-- section 276 of the Act and section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. (collectively, ``Complainants'') against Network IP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP (collectively, ``NIP'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 Complainants claim that NIP violated sections 201(b), 276, and 416(c) of the Act3 by failing to pay Complainants the compensation required by section 64.1300 of the Commission's rules4 for certain payphone calls completed during the period October 7, 1997 through November 23, 2001 (the ``Relevant Period'').5 For the reasons explained below, we find that NIP's failure to pay compensation to Complainants violates section 64.1300 of the rules and thus sections 201(b) and 276 of the Act. Because we grant Complainants' claims under sections 201(b)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2819A1.html
  • served by granting the waiver to allow some small flexibility in the deadline established by rule 1.718. II. BACKGROUND 3. Complainants are, inter alia, billing and collection agents for numerous independent payphone service providers (``PSPs'').4 NET is a switch-based reseller.5 On behalf of Complainants' PSP principals, the Formal Damages Complaint seeks recovery of ``dial-around'' payphone compensation from Defendants under rule 64.1300,6 which implements (along with other rules) section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').7 4. Under rule 1.718, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, the filing date of a formal complaint can ``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint involving the same parties and the same matter, but only if
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1424A1.html
  • Coin, Inc., Kellee Communications Group, Inc., and PayTel Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "PSP Complainants") are payphone services providers. APCC is an agent of the PSP Complainants, and of other payphone service providers, for the billing and collection of dial-around compensation. 3. IDT is a common carrier providing interexchange telecommunications services. IDT is also a "Completing Carrier," as defined by section 64.1300(a) of the Commission's rules. A. The Relevant Law 4. The Commission's payphone compensation rules are designed to ensure, inter alia, that payphone service providers are fairly compensated for coinless calls originated from their payphones. For the period at issue here, those rules require that the last facilities-based long distance carrier in a call path, the "Completing Carrier," compensate the payphone
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-139A1.html
  • The Application challenges a Memorandum Opinion and Order released by the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") granting a liability complaint filed by Complainants (collectively, "APCC") against Network pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Bureau Liability Order found, inter alia, that Network's failure to compensate APCC for certain completed payphone calls in accordance with section 64.1300 of our rules violated section 201(b) of the Act. As explained below, Network's Application presents no facts or arguments that persuade us that the Bureau made any procedural or substantive errors. Consequently, we affirm the Bureau Liability Order and deny the Application. In doing so, we reiterate that, consistent with common industry parlance, the term "facilities-based" carrier, as used in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-186A1.html
  • a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion; (2) section 64.1320 of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone rules; (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service providers ("PSPs") for each completed payphone call; (4) section 64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements; and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-14A1.html
  • reduced by amounts received by APCC from collateral sources. Consequently, APCC's Damages Complaint is granted in its entirety. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 66. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, 209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 209, 276, and sections 1.106, 1.716-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.106, 1.716-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that the petition of Defendants NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP for reconsideration of the Bureau's order granting the Complainants'motion for a waiver of section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.718, IS DENIED. 67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
  • Utah 84070-0541 as well as another known address - 2470 W. Majestic Parkway, Tucson, Arizona 85705. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S: 201-276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716-17. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). G-Five LLC v. Global Access, LD LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, No. EB-07-MDIC-0026, June 14, 2007 ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
  • in the various complaints - see Attachment. For consistency and ease of reference, we will refer to Defendant as "West Star." 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services v. West Star Telecommunications, LLC, Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0049 (dated Apr. 4, 2007) ("Notice"). Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
  • Informal Complaint Served on WorldOne Telecommunications File No. Complainant Defendant Service Dates EB-06-MDIC-0051 APCC Services, Inc. WorldOne Telecommunications April 2, 2007 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. WorldOne Telecommunications, Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0051 (Apr. 2, 2007) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
  • International Telecom Exchange File No. Complainant Defendant Service Date EB-06-MDIC-0052 APCC Services, Inc. International Telecom Exchange March 15, 2007 Group, Inc. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). APCC Services v. International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., Official Notice of Possible Enforcement Action and Amended Informal Complaint, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0052, (July 7, 2006) ("Notice"). See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
  • APCC Services, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 EB-06-MDIC-0084 G-Five LLC Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 01/31/07 none EB-07-MDIC-0019 PBS TelCom, Inc. Telefyne Inc. 09/26/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). See Appendix. APCC Services, Inc. v. Telefyne, Inc., Notice of Possible Enforcement Action, File No. EB-06-MDIC-0047 (Sept. 18, 2007) ("Notice"). See Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
  • Defendant Service Dates EB-07-MDIC-0001 PBS TelCom, Inc. Global Network Communication West, Inc. 4/25/07 EB-07-MDIC-0027 C&M Global Network Communication West, Inc. 6/14/07 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201 - 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.716 - 717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.717. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.718, 1.720-1.736 (describing the formal complaint process). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300-64.1340 (describing payphone compensation obligations). PBS TelCom, Inc. v. Global Network Communications West, Inc., Second Notice of Informal Complaint, File No. EB-07-MDIC-0001 (April 25, 2007) ("Notice") See Appendix. Notice at 2. Notice at 2. See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1086A1.html
  • of another reseller. II. BACKGROUND 3. Pursuant to section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Commission has prescribed regulations that "establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone." The Commission's rules governing payphone compensation obligations and procedures are codified under sections 64.1300-1320 of the Commission's rules. 4. On August 31, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to QCC. The August 31, 2006 LOI directed QCC, among other things, to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to the Qwest's compliance with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. QCC responded to the August 31, 2006 LOI on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1192A1.html
  • Released: June 29, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part a formal complaint that APCC Services, Inc. ("APCC") filed against CCI Communications, LLC ("CCI") and other defendants under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). As explained below, because CCI is a "Completing Carrier" under rule 64.1300(a), it owes per-call compensation for all calls it completed. Following the approach used by the Commission in APCC v. Radiant, we conclude that APCC is entitled to per-call compensation from CCI in the amount of $1,868,451, plus interest. II. BACKGROUND A. Per-Call Payphone Compensation 2. Section 276 of the Act directed the Commission to establish a per-call compensation plan to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1134A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. ("Compass Global"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau against Compass Global for possible violations of the Commission's rules governing payphone compensation. Specifically, the Consent Decree terminates the Bureau's investigation concerning sections 64.1300, 64.1310(a), and 64.1320 of the Commission's rules. The Consent Decree also terminates the Bureau's investigation of Compass Global's compliance with a Bureau directive issued pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), requiring it to provide certain information and documents. 2. The Bureau and Compass Global have negotiated the terms
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-5A1.html
  • on Review, 15 FCC Rcd 7475 (2000)). Complaint Legal Analysis at 8. Contel of the South, Inc. v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 548, 551 (2008); Telepacific Corp. v. Tel-American of Salt Lake City, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24552, 24555-56, nn. 27, 28, 29 (2004). 47 U.S.C. S: 276. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1300 - 64.1340. See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8962 (2008); APCC Services, Inc., et al. v. Network IP, LLC, et al., Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488, 10492-95, P:P: 10-16 (2006), aff'd in relevant part and remanded in part sub nom., NetworkIP, LLP v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1204.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1204.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1204.pdf
  • 20,541 (1996); Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21,233 (1996), aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom. Illinois Pub. Telecomm. Ass'n, 117 F.3d 555 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (collectively, Payphone Orders). With respect to paragraph (A), the FCC required interexchange carriers (IXCs) that carry calls originating from payphones to compensate the payphone service provider (PSP). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a) ("[E]very carrier to whom a completed call from a payphone is routed shall compensate the payphone service provider for the call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract."); Report and Order, Payphone Orders, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,566, p 48; id. at 20,584, p 83. Previously, PSPs had received no revenue for originating certain calls (such as
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1266.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1266.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1266.pdf
  • Payphone Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 20,596 p 110, with Second Reconsideration Order, 16 F.C.C.R. at 8106 p 18. Finally, the Commission noted that PSPs could continue to arrange alternative compensation schemes through private contracts with IXCs and SBRs. Second Reconsideration Order, 16 F.C.C.R. at 8106-07 p 19. The Commission amended its regulations to reflect these changes. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300, 64.1310 (2001). Denying reconsideration, the Commission rejected the IXCs' objections to the new rule. Third Order on Reconsideration and Order on Clarification, 16 F.C.C.R. 20,922 (2001). Sprint now petitions the court for review. II. Sprint's contention that the Commission erred by failing to issue a new NPRM prior to promulgating a new rule in the Second Order on Reconsideration is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/archives/whatsnewarchive04.html
  • [488]Acrobat Adelstein Statement: [489]Word | [490]Acrobat 8/13/04 Domestic Section 214 Application Filed for Transfer of Control of ICG Communications, Inc. and its Operating Subsidiaries to MCCC ICG Holdings, LLC Public Notice: [491]Word | [492]Acrobat 8/12/04 Request to Update Dial-Around Compensation Rate for Dial-Around Calls from Payphones Modified the default rate of payphone compensation for "dial-around" calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the FCC's rules. WC Docket No. 03-225 Report & Order: [493]Word | [494]Acrobat 8/10/04 WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU NETWORK CHANGE NOTIFICATION FILED BY BELLSOUTH Public Notice: [495]Word | [496]Acrobat 8/10/04 WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SHORT TERM NETWORK CHANGE NOTIFICATION FILED BY SBC COMMUNICATIONS Public Notice: [497]Word | [498]Acrobat 8/9/04 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers/IMPLEMENTATION
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html
  • pleading cycle established by the order designating issues for investigation in this matter. Denied Alascom, Inc.'s Motion for Extension. By Order Extending Pleading Cycle. (Dkt No. 95-182). Reply Comments Due: 10/15/2004. [92][Word] [93][Acrobat] 8/12/2004 Order: Request To Update Default Compensation Rate For Dial-Around Calls From Payphones. Modified the default rate of payphone compensation for "dial-around" calls set forth in section 64.1300(c) of the rules. (Dkt No. 03-225). [94][Word] [95][Acrobat] 8/6/2004 Public Notice:Comment Sought On Illinois Public Telecommunications Association's Petition For A Declaratory Ruling Concerning Refund Of Payphone Line Rate Charges. (Dkt No 96-128). Comments Due: 08/26/2004. Reply Comments Due: 09/07/2004. [96][Word] [97][Acrobat] 8/5/2004 Public Notice:Parties Asked To Refresh Record Regarding Reconsideration Of Price Cap Performance Review For Local Exchange Carriers 4th