Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1731 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
 
In the Matter of 
All American Telephone Co.,                      
e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and
ChaseCom,
Complainants,
v.
AT&T Corp.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-10-MD-003
ORDER
Adopted:   October 26, 2011 Released:  October 27, 2011
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Order dismisses the Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of Aventure 
Communication Technology, L.L.C.,1 and the Petition of Qwest Communications Company, LLC to 
Accept Opposition Filing.2 As discussed below, we dismiss the Aventure Petition for Reconsideration 
because Aventure has not satisfied the requirements for non-parties to seek reconsideration of a 
Commission order in an adjudicatory proceeding.  Similarly, we dismiss the Qwest Petition to Accept 
Filing because Qwest has not demonstrated that it should be permitted to intervene in the proceeding. 
II. BACKGROUND
2. This is a formal complaint proceeding effectuating a primary jurisdiction referral of 
litigation by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.3 The parties to the 
  
1 Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of Aventure Communication Technology, L.L.C., File No. EB-10-
MD-003 (filed Feb. 22, 2011) (“Aventure Petition for Reconsideration”).
2 Petition of Qwest Communications Company, LLC to Accept Opposition Filing, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed 
Mar. 4, 2011) (“Qwest Petition to Accept Filing”).
3 See All American Tel. Co., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., Order Referring Issues to the Federal Communications 
Commission, Case No. 1:07-cv-00861-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2010).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1731 
2
proceeding are complainants All American Telephone Co., e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and 
ChaseCom (collectively, the “CLECs”), and defendant AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”).  On January 20, 2011, 
the Commission issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the CLECs’ complaint and holding 
that neither AT&T’s failure to pay the CLECs’ terminating access charges nor its failure to file a “rate 
complaint ” with the Commission violated any provision of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended ( “Act ”).4
3. Aventure Communication Technology, L.L.C. (“Aventure”) – which is not a party to this 
proceeding – filed a petition for reconsideration of the All American Order. 5 Aventure is a rural local 
exchange carrier that has been  “embroiled in litigation in federal district court in Iowa related to 
interexchange carriers’ …  refusals to provide payment for the access services they have been taking” 
from Aventure.6
4. Qwest Communications Company, LLC (“Qwest”) – also not a party to this proceeding –
is one of the interexchange carriers involved in the Iowa litigation with Aventure.  Qwest filed a petition 
seeking permission to file an opposition to the Aventure Petition for Reconsideration and to the CLECs’ 
Petition for Reconsideration.7  
III. ANALYSIS
A. We Dismiss the Aventure Petition for Reconsideration.
5. In order to seek reconsideration of a Commission order in an adjudicatory proceeding to 
which it was not a party, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) the petitioner’s “interests are adversely 
affected” by the order, and (2) the petitioner has “good reason why it was not possible for [the petitioner] 
to participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding.” 8 Aventure claims that it is adversely affected by 
the All American Order because that Order allegedly is “vague” and “subject to multiple 
interpretations.”9 According to Aventure, it will incur costs briefing the Iowa courts about the 
precedential value of the All American Order and defending itself against Qwest’s efforts to dismiss some 
of Aventure ’s claims with prejudice based on the All American Order.10  
6. The Commission previously considered – and rejected – the precise argument Aventure 
  
4 All American Telephone Co., e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and ChaseCom v. AT&T Corp., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 723 (2011) (“All American Order”).
5 See Aventure Petition for Reconsideration.
6 Aventure Petition for Reconsideration at 1.
7 See Qwest Petition to Accept Filing.  See also Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of All American 
Telephone Co., Inc., e-Pinnacle Communications, Inc., and Chasecom, File No. EB-10-MD-003 (filed Feb. 22, 
2011) (“CLECs Petition for Reconsideration”).  See also AT&T’s Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, File 
No. EB-010-MD-003 (filed Mar. 4, 2011) (“AT&T Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration”). 
8 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1).
9 Aventure Petition for Reconsideration at 2-3.
10 Id. at 3.  Qwest has requested that Aventure “voluntarily withdraw all Communications Act claims from the 
pending federal court litigation, in light of the All American Order, or Qwest will move the court to dismiss those 
claims with prejudice.”  Id. at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1731 
3
makes in this case.  In AT&T v. BTI,11 the Commission dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by 
five CLECs and a CLEC trade association that were not parties to a complaint proceeding under section 
208 of the Act.  The Commission held that the mere precedential value of an adjudicatory order in a 
section 208 complaint proceeding cannot “adversely affect” a non-party to the adjudication within the 
meaning of section 405(a) of the Act and section 1.106 of the Commission’s rules.12  AT&T v. BTI 
compels the conclusion here that Aventure has not demonstrated that the All American Order “adversely 
affects” its interests under rule 1.106(b)(1).
7. Aventure further asserts that it was “neither given notice of the scope of the proceeding 
nor an opportunity to participate in the action,” because the complaint proceeding between the CLECs 
and AT&T is “restricted” for purposes of the ex parte rules.13 We need not reach this argument since 
Aventure fails to satisfy the “adversely affected” component of rule 1.106(b)(1).  We note, however, that 
the public is able to ascertain the “scope” of any proceeding – including a restricted proceeding – by 
reviewing the pleadings, which are publicly available in the Commission’s Reference Information Center.  
B. We Dismiss the Qwest Petition to Accept Filing.
8. The Qwest Petition to Accept Filing cites no Commission rule or precedent as a basis 
for allowing Qwest to participate in the reconsideration phase of this complaint proceeding.  Rather, the 
Petition simply argues that Qwest ’s participation “at this time is warranted and is consistent with the 
public interest and orderly process ,” 14 because Qwest  “ is a party to a number of lawsuits brought by 
what are known as ‘traffic pumping’ LECs to collect what they claim are tariffed access charges.” 15 We 
construe Qwest’s request as being tantamount to a petition to intervene.
9. The Commission’s rules make no provision for filing of petitions to intervene in 
adjudicatory non-hearing proceedings.16 In past complaint proceedings, however, the Commission has 
looked for guidance to the standard contained in rule 1.223(b), which requires a petition for leave to 
intervene as a party in a hearing to show, among other things, the “interest of petitioner in the 
proceedings” and “how such petitioner’s participation will assist the Commission in the determination of 
the issues in question.” 17
  
11 AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 21750 (2001) (“AT&T v. BTI”).
12 Id., 16 FCC Rcd at 21752-53, ¶¶ 6-7.
13 Aventure Petition for Reconsideration at 3.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1208 (Restricted Proceedings).
14 Qwest Petition to Accept Filing at 1.
15 Id. at 3.
16 Commission rule 1.106(b)(1) addresses petitions for reconsideration filed by persons who are not parties to the 
proceeding.  47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b).  It does not speak to non-parties’ attempts to file oppositions to petitions for 
reconsideration.
17 47 C.F.R. § 1.223(b).  See Teleconnect Co. v. The Bell Company of Pennsylvania, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5202, 5206, ¶¶ 18-20 (Com. Car. Bur. 1991) (“Although this section specifically addresses 
intervention in an evidentiary hearing, we believe it to be a useful standard when considering the petition for 
intervention before us” in a formal complaint proceeding), aff'd on review, 10 FCC Rcd 1626 (1995).  See also JNE 
Investments, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 623, 627, ¶ 12 (2008) (noting that the 
“Commission’s Rules do not provide for petitions to intervene in non-hearing cases,” but looking to the “factors for 
intervention” in rule 1.223(b)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1731 
4
10. The Qwest Petition to Accept Filing fails to satisfy the requirements for intervention. 
Specifically, even if Qwest has an “interest” in this proceeding, it has made no showing as to how its 
“participation will assist the Commission in the determination of the issues in question.” 18 Because, as 
discussed above, we dismiss the Aventure Petition for Reconsideration, Qwest has no need to respond to 
the arguments Aventure has advanced.  Moreover, AT&T timely filed a 22-page opposition to the CLECs 
Petition for Reconsideration,19 and Qwest does not contend that AT&T’s submission fails to adequately 
address the issues raised in that Petition.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Qwest Petition to Accept Filing.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 405, and sections 
0.111, 0.311, and 1.106 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.106, that the 
Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of Aventure Communication Technology, L.L.C. IS 
DISMISSED.
12. 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 0.111, 
0.311, and 1.223 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.223, that the Petition of 
Qwest Communications Company, LLC to Accept Opposition Filing IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief 
Enforcement Bureau
  
18 47 C.F.R. § 1.223(b).  See Texas Cable and Telecommunications Assoc. v. GTE Southwest Inc., Order, 17 FCC 
Rcd 6261, 6265, ¶ 9 (2002) (rejecting a request to intervene in a pole attachment proceeding where the petitioner 
failed to show how its participation would assist in the resolution of the issues).
19 See AT&T Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration.