*Pages 1--2 from Microsoft Word - 54309.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA- 06- 71 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 A Telecommunications, Accessible Payphones, Admiralty ) Industries d/ b/ a San Diego Pay Telephones, Advanced Pay ) Phone Services, Inc., Bay Area Telephone, Bay Distribution ) Service, Inc. d/ b/ a Western Telecom, C/ B Tel Inc., Central ) Telephone, Inc., Century Payphone Systems, Charles Parsons ) d/ b/ a Bayphones, Coin Communications, Cook Payphone ) Company, Covenant Development Corp., Custom Teleconnect, ) Inc., DTI Com LLC d/ b/ a Dee Union Svc., Easycoin Vending ) Corp., The Telephone Company, Expense Management, Inc., ) GCB Communications Inc. d/ b/ a Pacific Communications, ) Golden State Payphones, JA Communications, Littlejohn ) Communications Inc., Megatronics Payphones, Mid- Valley ) Payphones, Nastel Communication Corp., Nevada Telephone, ) Inc., Pac Western, Paramount Payphone Southern LLC, Pay ) Phones North, Inc., Payphone Technology Telesystems, Paytel ) Northwest, Inc., PBS Telecom, Precision Pay Phones, Pro Com, ) Professional Communications, Public Payphone, Inc., Public ) Payphones, Public Paytel, Public Phone, Randy Hong d/ b/ a ) File No. Teletrex, RJ Communications, Robert Tong d/ b/ a Public Phone ) EB- 05- MD- 025 Management., Stars and Stripes Communication Corporation, ) Supertel, Tele Tech Inc., The Phone People Inc., The Redmond ) Group, Western Payphone Network Inc., Western Payphone ) Systems, Western Telephone, WHB Payphones, and Zane Greene, ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) ) T- Netix, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL Adopted: January 12, 2006 Released: January 13, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On September 2, 2005, the above- captioned complainants (“ Complainants”) filed 1 Federal Communications Commission DA- 06- 71 2 a formal complaint 1 against T- Netix, Inc. (“ Defendant”) pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“ Act”). 2 In their Complaint, Complainants alleged that Defendant violated sections 201( b), 276( b), and 416( c) of the Act and Commission rules by failing to make certain payphone compensation payments. 3 2. Complainants and Defendant have now filed a Motion 4 stating that they have reached a mutually- acceptable resolution of their dispute, and requesting that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 5 3. We are satisfied that dismissing the Complaint with prejudice 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 4( i), 4( j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 154( j), and 208, sections 1.720- 1.736 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 1.720- 1.736, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 1 Formal Complaint, File No. EB- 05- MD- 025 (filed Sept. 2, 2005) (“ Complaint”). 2 47 U. S. C. § 208. 3 Complaint at 16, ¶ 72. 4 Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB- 05- MD- 025 (filed Jan. 4, 2006) (“ Motion”). 5 Motion at 2, ¶ 3. 2