Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Indiana Telcom Corporation, Inc., )
)
)
Complainant,
)
v. ) File No. EB-02-MD-025
)
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., )
TDS Telecommunications Corporation, )
Tipton Telephone Company, Inc. )
d/b/a TDS Telcom, Communications )
Corporation of Indiana d/b/a TDS )
Telcom,
and Home Telephone Company of )
Pittsboro, Inc. )
)
)
Defendants.
ORDER
Adopted: September 2, 2004 Released: September 3,
2004
By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division:
1. On April 26, 2002, Indiana Telcom Corporation, Inc.
(``ITC'') filed with this Commission a formal complaint
against Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., TDS
Telecommunications Corporation, Tipton Telephone Company,
Inc. d/b/a TDS Telcom, Communications Corporation of
Indiana d/b/a TDS Telcom, and Home Telephone Company of
Pittsboro, Inc. (``TDS''), asserting that the Defendants
violated sections 201(b) and 203(c) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Part 69 of the
Commission's rules1 by improperly assessing end user
common line (``EUCL'') charges on the Complainant's
payphones.2
2. On September 12, 2003, Complainant filed a motion
requesting that we dismiss the formal complaint in this
proceeding with prejudice, as the parties have settled
their dispute.3 We grant Complainant's motion to dismiss
the formal complaint, with prejudice. We find that
dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the
public interest by promoting the private resolution of
disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time
and resources of the parties and the Commission.
3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1,
4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended,
47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-
1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736,
and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 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
_________________________
147 U.S.C. §§ 201(b) and 203(c); Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. (1996); 47 C.F.R. §§ 69.1 et. seq.
2Indiana Telcom Corporation v. Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.,
TDS Telecommunications Corporation, Tipton Telephone Company,
Inc. d/b/a TDS Telcom, Communications Corporation of Indiana
d/b/a TDS Telcom, and Home Telephone Company of Pittsboro, Inc.,
Supplement to Formal complaint, File No. EB-02-MD-025 (filed Apr.
26, 2002).
3Indiana Telcom Corporation v. Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.,
TDS Telecommunications Corporation, Tipton Telephone Company,
Inc. d/b/a TDS Telcom, Communications Corporation of Indiana
d/b/a TDS Telcom, and Home Telephone Company of Pittsboro, Inc.,
Notice of Settlement and Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint With
Prejudice, FCC, File No. EB-02-MD-025 (filed Sept. 12, 2003).
Because the Commission order imposing liability in this case was
on appeal to the D.C. Circuit at the time this motion was filed,
we deferred ruling on the motion until the appeal had been
decided and mandate issued. Communications Vending Corp. of
Ariz., Inc. et al. v. FCC, 365 F3d 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2004).