*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 18368.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  1338 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 Metrocall,  Inc., 
 Complainant, 
 v. 
 Concord  Telephone  Co., 
 Defendant. 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 File  No.  EB-  01-  MD-  008 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  June  6,  2002  Released:  June  10,  2002 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 1.  On  April  6,  2001,  Metrocall,  Inc.  (“  Metrocall”)  filed  a  formal  complaint  against  Concord  Telephone  Co.  (“  CTC”)  alleging  that  CTC  violated  section  201(  b)  of  the 
 Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  and  section  51.703(  b)  of  the  Commission’s  rules  by:  1)  charging  Metrocall  recurring  fees  solely  for  the  use  of  direct  inward  dial  (“  DID”)  numbers; 
 and  2)  charging  Metrocall  fees  for  DID  facilities  used  to  transport  CTC-  originated  traffic  from  CTC’s  network  to  Metrocall’s  network.  On  February  2,  2002,  the  Enforcement  Bureau 
 (“  Bureau”)  released  a  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  (“  MO&  O),  granting  in  part  and  denying  in  part  Metrocall’s  complaint.  1  On  March  11,  2002,  CTC  filed  an  application  for  review  of  the 
 MO&  O.  The  Bureau  then  granted  several  joint  motions  for  extension  of  time  for  Metrocall  to  file  an  opposition  to  CTC’s  application  for  review,  and  to  file  a  supplemental  complaint  for 
 damages.  2 
 2.  On  May  30,  2002,  the  parties  filed  a  Joint  Motion  To  Dismiss  With  Prejudice,  in  which  they  request  that  the  Commission  dismiss  with  prejudice  Metrocall’s  formal  complaint 
 and  CTC’s  pending  application  for  review  because  the  parties  have  reached  a  full  and  complete  settlement  of  the  dispute  at  issue.  We  are  satisfied  that  dismissing  this  complaint  and  the  related 
 application  for  review  will  serve  the  public  interest  by  promoting  the  private  resolution  of  disputes  and  by  eliminating  the  need  for  further  litigation  and  the  expenditure  of  further  time  and 
 resources  of  the  parties  and  of  this  Commission. 


 1  Metrocall,  Inc.  v.  Concord  Telephone  Co.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  DA  02-  301  (EB  Feb.  8,  2002). 
 2  See  e.  g.,  Metrocall,  Inc.  v.  Concord  Telephone  Co.,  Order,  DA  02-  1136  (EB  May  14,  2002). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  1338 
 2 
 3.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  1,  4(  i),  4(  j),  201(  b),  and  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  151,  154(  i),  154(  j),  201(  b),  and 
 208,  and  the  authority  delegated  in  sections  0.111  and  0.311  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.111,  0.311,  that  Metrocall  and  CTC’s  Motion  To  Dismiss  With  Prejudice  IS 
 GRANTED. 
 4.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  this  proceeding  is  TERMINATED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Radhika  V.  Karmarkar  Deputy  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division 
 Enforcement  Bureau 
2