*Pages 1--2 from Microsoft Word - 7035.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 72 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) COMSAT CORPORATION, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. E- 99- 27 ) STRATOS MOBILE NETWORKS (USA), LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER ON REVIEW Adopted: February 22, 2001 Released: February 26, 2001 By the Commission: 1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed by COMSAT Corporation 1 (“ COMSAT”) pursuant to section 1.115 of the Commission’s rules. 2 COMSAT requests review of a November 15, 2000 order by the Enforcement Bureau, 3 which dismissed with prejudice a complaint COMSAT filed against Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC (“ Stratos”) pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“ Act”). 4 The Bureau determined that both the doctrine of res judicata and section 207 of the Act 5 precluded COMSAT from bringing the complaint. 1 Application for Review of COMSAT Corporation, File No. E- 99- 27 (filed December 18, 2000) (“ Application for Review”). 2 47 C. F. R. § 1.115. 3 COMSAT Corporation v. Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA No. 00- 2589 (Enf. Bur. Nov. 15, 2000) (“ Bureau Order”). 4 47 U. S. C. § 208. 5 47 U. S. C. § 207. 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 72 2 2. Upon careful review of the Application for Review and the entire record herein, we conclude that COMSAT has failed to demonstrate that the Enforcement Bureau erred. The Enforcement Bureau properly decided the matters raised below, and we uphold its decision for the reasons stated in the Bureau Order. 6 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4( i), 4( j), 207, and 208 of the Act, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 154( j), 207, 208, and section 1.115( g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.115( g), that the Application for Review filed by COMSAT Corporation IS DENIED and this proceeding IS TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary 6 We note that COMSAT does not contest the Enforcement Bureau’s conclusion that COMSAT has made contradictory representations to the Commission concerning the nature of its contractual relationship with Stratos. Bureau Order at ¶¶ 19, 22- 23, and 28 (explaining that COMSAT argues in this case that Stratos was not bound by a certain contract between COMSAT and IDB Mobile Communications, Inc. (“ IDB”), even though COMSAT represented in prior Commission proceedings that Stratos was “directly, explicitly, and unambiguously” bound by the same contract). To the extent that COMSAT relies on principles of fairness and equity to argue against our application of the res judicata doctrine (Application for Review at 10- 11, 16- 17), this conspicuous omission by COMSAT substantially undermines its argument. 2