*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 14688.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  288 
 Before  the  FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 Cable  &  Wireless  USA,  Inc., 
 Complainant, 
 v. 
 Verizon  Delaware,  Inc., 
 Verizon  Maryland,  Inc., 
 Verizon  New  England,  Inc.  d/  b/  a 
 Verizon  Maine, 
 Verizon  Massachusetts, 
 Verizon  New  Hampshire, 
 Verizon  Rhode  Island,  and 
 Verizon  Vermont, 
 Verizon  New  Jersey,  Inc., 
 Verizon  New  York,  Inc., 
 Verizon  Pennsylvania,  Inc., 
 Verizon  Virginia,  Inc., 
 Verizon  Washington,  DC,  Inc.,  and 
 Verizon  West  Virginia,  Inc., 


 Defendants. 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 File  No.  EB-  01-  MD-  022 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  February  6,  2002  Released:  February  7,  2002 


 By  the  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 1.  On  September  4,  2001,  Cable  &  Wireless  USA,  Inc.  (“  Cable  &  Wireless”) 
 filed  the  captioned  complaint  against  Verizon  Delaware,  Inc.,  Verizon  Maryland,  Inc., 
 Verizon  New  England,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Maine,  Verizon  Massachusetts,  Verizon  New 
 Hampshire,  Verizon  Rhode  Island,  and  Verizon  Vermont),  Verizon  New  Jersey,  Inc., 
 Verizon  New  York,  Inc.,  Verizon  Pennsylvania,  Inc.,  Verizon  Virginia,  Inc.,  Verizon 
 Washington,  DC,  Inc.,  and  Verizon  West  Virginia,  Inc.  (collectively  “Verizon”).  In 
 short,  the  complaint  alleged  that  Verizon’s  failure  to  provision  Cable  &  Wireless  special 
 access  orders  in  a  timely  manner  violated  sections  201(  b),  202(  a),  203,  251(  g)  and  272  of 
 the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  201(  b),  202(  a),  203,  251(  g) 
 and  272. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  288 
 2 
 2.  The  parties  recently  entered  into  negotiations  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
 their  dispute.  On  January  28,  2002,  Complainant  Cable  &  Wireless  filed  a  motion  to 
 dismiss  without  prejudice  its  complaint  against  Verizon.  1  In  its  motion,  C&  W  stated  that 
 the  parties  had  worked  diligently  to  resolve  the  dispute  and  that  Cable  &  Wireless 
 determined  that  its  business  concerns  had  been  addressed  by  Verizon  and  that  further 
 litigation  was  unnecessary.  Verizon  does  not  oppose  Complainant’s  motion  based  on  the 
 fact  “that  the  parties  have  reached  an  agreement  in  principle  to  settle  the  matter.”  2 


 3.  We  are  satisfied  that  dismissing  the  complaint  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  this 
 Commission. 


 4.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  1,  4(  i),  4(  j),  and  208 
 of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  151,  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  unopposed  motion  to  dismiss  the  above-  captioned 
 complaint  without  prejudice  IS  GRANTED. 


 1  Cable  &  Wireless  USA,  Inc.  ’s  Motion  to  Dismiss  Without  Prejudice,  File  No.  EB-  01-  MD-  022  (filed 
 Janurary  28,  2002).  2 
 Verizon  Defendants  in  Support  of  Motion  to  Dismiss  Without  Prejudice,  File  No.  EB-  01-  MD-  022  (filed 
 February  6,  2002). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  288 
 3 
 5.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  above-  captioned  complaint  IS 
 DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE  and  that  the  proceeding  IS  TERMINATED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Alexander  P.  Starr 
 Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division 
 Enforcement  Bureau 
3