*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 26451.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  1050 
 Before  the  FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of 
 GENERAL  COMMUNICATION,  INC., 
 Complainant, 
 v. 
 ALASKA  COMMUNICATIONS  SYSTEMS,  HOLDINGS,  INC.  and  ALASKA 
 COMMUNICATIONS  SYSTEMS,  INC.  d/  b/  a/  ATU  TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
 d/  b/  a  ANCHORAGE  TELEPHONE  UTILITY, 


 Defendants. 


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


 File  No.  EB-  00-  MD-  016 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  March  31,  2003  Released:  April  2,  2003 
 By  the  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 1.  On  August  24,  2000,  General  Communication,  Inc.  (“  GCI”)  filed  a  formal  complaint  1  against  Alaska  Communications  Systems  Holdings,  Inc.  and  Alaska  Communications 
 Systems,  Inc.,  d/  b/  a  ATU  Telecommunications  d/  b/  a  Anchorage  Telephone  Utility  (collectively  “ACS”)  pursuant  to  section  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (“  Act”).  2  The 
 Complaint  alleged  that  ACS  owes  GCI  damages  for  exceeding  ACS’s  lawful  rate  of  return  on  interstate  access  charges  for  the  January  1,  1997  to  December  31,  1998  monitoring  period. 


 2.  On  January  24,  2001,  the  Commission  issued  an  order  granting  in  part  and  denying  in  part  GCI’s  complaint.  3  The  proceeding  is  currently  pending  again  before  the 


 1  GCI  Formal  Complaint,  File  No.  EB-  00-  MD-  016  (filed  Aug.  24,  2000)  (“  Complaint”). 
 2  47  U.  S.  C.  §  208. 
 3  General  Communication,  Inc.  v.  Alaska  Communications  Systems  Holdings,  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion 
 and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  2834  (2001),  aff'd  in  substantial  part,  remanded  in  part  sub.  nom.  ACS  of  Anchorage,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  290  F.  3d  403  (D.  C.  Cir.  2002). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  1050 
 2 
 Commission  on  remand  from  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  District  of  Columbia  Circuit.  4 
 3.  On  March  5,  2003,  the  parties  filed  a  Joint  Motion  For  Dismissal  of  Complaint  With  Prejudice,  in  which  they  state  that  they  have  reached  a  mutually-  acceptable  resolution  of 
 the  issues  alleged  in  the  complaint,  and  move  that  we  dismiss  the  complaint  with  prejudice.  5  We  grant  the  parties’  joint  motion  to  dismiss  the  complaint,  with  prejudice.  We  find  that  dismissal  is 
 appropriate  and  will  serve  the  public  interest  by  promoting  the  private  resolution  of  disputes  and  by  eliminating  the  need  for  further  litigation  and  the  expenditure  of  additional  time  and  resources 
 of  the  parties  and  this  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  sections 
 1.720-  1.736  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  1.720-  1.736,  and  authority  delegated  by  sections  0.111,  and  0.311  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.111,  0.311,  that  the  parties’ 
 joint  motion  to  dismiss  with  prejudice  the  above-  captioned  complaint  filed  IS  GRANTED  in  its  entirety. 


 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  sections 
 1.720-  1.736  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  1.720-  1.736,  and  authority  delegated  by  sections  0.111,  and  0.311  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.111,  0.311,  that 
 the  above-  captioned  complaint  IS  DISMISSED  WITH  PREJUDICE  in  its  entirety  and  the  proceeding  IS  TERMINATED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Alexander  P.  Starr  Chief 
 Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division  Enforcement  Bureau 


 4  Id. 
 5  Joint  Motion  for  Dismissal  with  Prejudice,  File  No.  EB-  00-  MD-  016  (filed  Mar.  5,  2003).  The  parties  have 
 notified  the  Commission  that  GCI  has  received  payment  from  ACS  of  the  agreed-  upon  settlement  amount.  Joint  Letter  from  Joe  D.  Edge,  counsel  for  GCI,  Tina  M.  Pidgeon,  GCI  Vice  President,  Federal  Regulatory  Affairs,  and 


 Karen  Brinkman  et  al.,  counsel  for  ACS,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  File  No.  EB-  00-  MD-  016  (filed  Mar.  26,  2003). 
2