Federal Communications Commission DA 97-2386
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C 20554
In the Matter of )
)DICOMM Cellular, L. P., ) 
Complainant, )v. ) File No. WB/ENF-F-96-009
) (E-93-86) 
Genesee Telephone Co., ) Defendant. )
ORDER
Adopted: November 13, 1997 Released: November 18,1997
By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau.
1. This proceeding was initiated on March 13, 1993, with a filing of a formal complaint 
by DICOMM Cellular, L.P. ("complainant") against Genesee Telephone Company ("defendant"). 
At that time, complainant was the non-wireline cellular radiotelephone licensee in the New York 
-3 Rural Service Area (RSA) and defendant was the non-wireline licensee in the adjacent 
Rochester, New York Metropolitan Service Area (MSA). Complainant alleged that, during a 
period of several months in late 1992 and early 1993, defendant had programmed the mobile 
units assigned to some of its customers to block them from using complainant's roaming services 
when travelling in the New York - 3 RSA Complainant contended that defendant had thereby 
violated Sections 201(a), 201(b), 202(a) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and Sections 22.100(a), 22.902(d), 22.91 l(b) and 22.915 of the Commission's Rules. 
An answer and a motion to dismiss were filed by the defendant. Discovery motions and 
oppositions thereto have also been filed by the parties. The record file indicates that there has been no activity in this proceeding since the end of 1993.
2. After the responsibility for this proceeding was transferred to the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, the attorneys last named in the record as representing both the 
complainant and the defendant were contacted by an attorney on the staff of the Enforcement and Consumer Information Division. Both of the attorneys stated that they were no longer employed 
by the parties and no longer had authority to act for them in this proceeding. They reported that the ownership of both the complainant and defendant had changed since the complaint had been 
filed. They believed that the dispute giving rise to this complaint may have been settled by the 
successor corporations. The Commission's licensing files confirm that the block A license for the New York -3 RSA is no longer held by the complainant and has been transferred twice since this 
proceeding was initiated The Commission's records also confirm that the ownership and control
19435
Federal Communications Commission________DA 97-2386
of defendant has subsequently been acquired by Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. 
However, the record herein does not indicate that the parties had filed a motion to dismiss or had 
otherwise had made a submission in this proceeding to advise the Commission of these events, 
as they were required to do by Section 1.720(g) of the Commission's Rules
3. On October 8, 1997, we mailed a written notice to potentially interested parties that, 
in light of the apparent abandonment of this proceeding by the parties, we intended to dismiss 
DICOMM Cellular, L.P.'s complaint with prejudice and terminate the proceeding. The notice 
was sent to the following: the complainant at the address set forth in the record; the defendant 
at its current address, as indicated in the Commission's license files; the complainant's attorney 
of record; the defendant's attorney of record; the immediate transferee of complaint's cellular 
license for the New York -3 RSA; the present holder of that license; and Southwestern Bell 
Mobile Systems, Inc. The notice advised that any party objecting to the proposed dismissal of 
the complaint and termination of proceeding must submit its opposition thereto in witting by 
October 24, 1997. No oppositions have been received by the Commission. Only one response 
to the notice was received. This was submitted by the defendant and stated that it did not oppose 
the dismissal of the complaint or the termination of the proceeding.
4. In light of the foregoing, it appears that this proceeding has been effectively 
abandoned by the parties and that, accordingly, the complaint, herein, should be dismissed and 
this proceeding should be terminated.
5. WHEREFORE, 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), 1540), 208, and Section 0.321 
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R § 0.321, that the above-captioned complaint IS 
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Howard C. Davenport
Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
19436