Before the

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

Indiana Paging Network, Inc. )

)

Complainant, )

)

> v\. ) File No. IC-98-53310

)

Indiana Bell Telephone Company, an )

SBC/Ameritech Operating Company, )

Verizon, )

BellSouth of Indiana, )

Sprint Corporation and )

Rochester Telephone Company, )

)

Defendants. )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: January 14, 2002 Released: January 15, 2002**

By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement
Bureau:

1\. On December 17, 1998, Indiana Paging Network, Inc. ("Indiana
Paging") filed informal complaints with the Commission against Indiana
Bell Telephone Company, an SBC/Ameritech operating company
("SBC/Ameritech"), Verizon (then GTE of Indiana), BellSouth of Indiana
("BellSouth"), Sprint Corporation ("Sprint") and Rochester Telephone
Company ("RTC").

2\. Under the FCC's complaint rules, Indiana Paging was required to file
a formal complaint within six months of each LEC response to its
informal complaint in order to have the formal complaint relate back to
the date the informal complaint was filed.[^1] However, on October 18,
1999, Indiana Paging filed a request for waiver of the six-month
requirement, arguing that the issues raised in its informal complaints
were similar to those raised in several pending formal complaint
proceedings,[^2] and that the public interest would be served by
allowing Indiana Paging to delay the filing of its formal complaints
until after at least one of those formal complaint proceedings was
concluded. The FCC's Enforcement Bureau granted Indiana Paging's request
for waiver on June 2, 2000, and established the time for filing formal
complaints in this proceeding to be 90 days after the entry of a final
non-appealable order in at least one of the identified formal complaint
proceedings.[^3]

3\. The Commission issued the *TSR Wireless Order* on June 21, 2000,
which resolved liability issues in five of the pending formal complaint
proceedings.[^4] The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
upheld the Commission's decision on June 15, 2001.[^5] The Court of
Appeals' decision became final and non-appealable ninety days after it
was issued (upon expiration of the period in which to file a writ of
certiorari),[^6] and adding another ninety days as provided in the
*Extension Order* made the date for filing Indiana Paging's formal
complaint December 12, 2001.

4\. On December 7, 2001, Indiana Paging filed a first Petition for
Extension of Time requesting that we waive section 1.718 of the
Commission's rules to allow Indiana Paging an additional thirty day
period from December 12, 2001, to convert the informal complaints into
formal complaints. Indiana Paging stated that it had been actively
engaged in settlement discussions to resolve the matters at issue in its
informal complaint proceedings and that the thirty day extension would
facilitate settlement efforts. SBC/Ameritech, Verizon, BellSouth, Sprint
and RTC all consented to the Petition, and we granted it on December 17,
2001.[^7] Our order specified that the time for conversion of the
informal complaints into formal complaints was extended from December
12, 2001, to January 11, 2002.

5\. On January 8, 2002, Indiana Paging filed the instant Petition for
Additional Extension of Time, requesting another thirty day extension of
time (from January 11 to February 11, 2002) for converting its informal
complaints into formal complaints. Indiana Paging states that it has
settled its dispute with two of the five defendants and has made
substantial progress in settlement discussions with the remaining
carriers. Further, all parties consent to the requested extension. We
are satisfied that granting Indiana Paging's petition will serve the
public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by
postponing the need for further litigation and expenditure of further
time and resources of the parties and of this Commission until such time
as may actually be necessary.

6\. 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 1.3 and 1.718 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 1.718, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111
and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the
Petition for Additional Extension of Time filed by Indiana Paging
Network, Inc. IS GRANTED.

7\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise extended by order, the
deadlines that would otherwise apply under section 1.718 of our rules,
47 C.F.R. § 1.718, are hereby waived, and the dates on which Indiana
Paging must convert the informal complaints against Indiana Bell
Telephone Company, an SBC/Ameritech operating company, Verizon,
BellSouth of Indiana, Sprint Corporation, and Rochester Telephone
Company into formal complaints pursuant to section 1.718 of our rules,
47 C.F.R. § 1.718, are extended to February 11, 2002.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Radhika V. Karmarkar
>
> Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division
>
> Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.718.

[^2]: *See, e.g.,* Formal Complaints of Metrocall, Inc., File Nos.
    E-98-14 through E-98-18 (filed January 20, 1998).

[^3]: *See* Indiana Paging Network, Inc., *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 9436 (Enf.
    Bur. 2000) (waiving Section 1.718(a) of the Commission's rules,
    which requires that a formal complaint be filed within six months of
    an associated informal complaint) ("*Extension Order*")*.*

[^4]: *See* TSR Wireless, LLC, *et al.* v U S West Communications, Inc,
    *et al.*, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000)
    ("*TSR Wireless Order*"), *aff'd Qwest Corp., et al. v. FCC*, No
    00-1377 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 2001).

[^5]: *Id.*

[^6]: In the interim, the petitioners filed a petition for rehearing *en
    banc* that was denied.

[^7]: *See* Indiana Paging Network, Inc., *Order*, DA 01-2910 (rel. Dec.
    17, 2001).