******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Innkeepers' Telemanagement and Equipment Corporation, Complainant, v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. E-99-21 ORDER Adopted: December 22, 1999 Released: December 23, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 30, 1999, Innkeepers' Telemanagement & Equipment Corporation (ITEC) filed the above-captioned formal complaint against MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) complaining that MCI violated numerous provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). ITEC alleged, among other things, that MCI violated section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  201(b), by failing to inform it that an agreement between ITEC and MCI was terminated, by marketing to ITEC's customers, and by failing to make reasonable efforts to settle its dispute with ITEC. ITEC alleged that MCI violated section 202(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  202(a), by making certain concessions to third parties not made to ITEC. ITEC alleged that MCI violated section 203 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  203, by making unlawful rebates. Finally, ITEC challenged as unlawful pursuant to sections 201(b), 206, 207, 208, 402, 404, 405, 414 and 415 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  201(b), 206, 207, 208, 402, 404, 405, 414, 415, certain arbitration provisions in MCI's tariff. 2. On December 22, 1999, ITEC filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice. In support of the motion, ITEC states that it has executed a settlement agreement with MCI resolving this matter. The motion is unopposed. 3. Based on ITEC's representations in its motion, we believe that the dismissal of this complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111 and 0.311, that ITEC's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Complaint, IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau