*Pages 1--3 from Microsoft Word - 13014.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2721 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of AT& T CORP. and AT& T of the VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. Complainants, v. VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE CORPORATION d/ b/ a INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB- 01- MDIC- 0552 ORDER Adopted: November 20, 2001 Released: November 21, 2001 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 10, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1. 716, AT& T Corp. and its wholly- owned subsidiary, AT& T of the Virgin Islands, Inc. (collectively, “AT& T”) filed an informal complaint against Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/ b/ a Innovative Telephone (“ Vitelco”). 1 AT& T alleges that Vitelco has violated section 201( b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“ the Act”), 47 U. S. C. § 201( b), and the Commission’s rules regarding the maximum allowable rate- of- return for local exchange carriers in 47 C. F. R. § 65.700 et seq. According to a proposed order attached to a joint motion filed by the parties on September 10, 2001, “Vitelco is expected to respond to the complaint by denying all of the allegations in the complaint and claiming it has no liability to AT& T.” 2 1 Informal Complaint of AT& T Corp. and AT& T of the Virgin Islands, Inc. Against Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/ b/ a Innovative Telephone, EB- 01- MDIC- 0552 (filed Sept. 10, 2001). 2 See Proposed Order at 1 submitted with Joint Motion of AT& T Corp., AT& T of the Virgin Islands, Inc. and Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/ b/ a Innovative Telephone Regarding Procedure for Response of Informal Complaint (filed Sept. 10, 2001) (“ Joint Motion”). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2721 2 2. AT& T’s claims are in key respects similar to claims presented by GCI Communications in a formal complaint on which the Commission ruled in favor of the complainant. 3 That ruling is now under review by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“ D. C. Circuit”). 4 3. Because the outcome of that appeal is likely to affect the resolution of AT& T’s informal complaint, and to conserve the resources of the parties and the Commission, the parties submitted a joint motion, on September 10, 2001, proposing that the Commission require Vitelco not to respond to AT& T’s informal complaint until ninety (90) days after the D. C. Circuit’s decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. 5 4. We are satisfied that granting this joint request, as modified, regarding Vitelco’s filing obligation, will serve the public interest. The approach the Parties have proposed will fully protect both AT& T’s and Vitelco’s rights, conserve private and public resources, and cause no injury to other parties. We note that our standard procedure is to allow defendant carriers approximately 30 days from the date we transmit the complaint to file a response. The Joint Motion asks that “the Enforcement Bureau instruct Vitelco not to respond to AT& T’s informal complaint until ninety (90) days after a decision on the merits” by the D. C. Circuit in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. 6 Given the language contained in the Joint Motion, we direct Vitelco to file its response no sooner than ninety (90) days after the D. C. Circuit’s decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the D. C. Circuit’s decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4( i), 4( j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 154( j), 208 and the authority delegated by Sections 0.111, 0. 311, 1.717, and 1.718 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0.111, 0. 311, 1.717, and 1.718 that Vitelco respond to AT& T’s informal complaint no sooner than ninety (90) days after the D. C. Circuit’s decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted, but no later than one 3 General Communication, Inc. v. Alaska Communications Systems Holdings et al., EB- 00- MD- 016, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 2834 (2001) (“ GCI Order”). 4 ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1059 (D. C. Cir. Filed Feb. 7, 2001). 5 Joint Motion at 1- 2. 6 Joint Motion at 1- 2 (emphasis added). 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2721 3 hundred and twenty (120) days after the D. C. Circuit’s decision on the merits in ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1059, has become final and appellate remedies have been exhausted. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 3