**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. EB-05-MD-016        |
|                                  | * |                              |
| APCC Services, Inc.,             | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Complainant,                     | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| v\.                              | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Radiant Telecom, Inc.,           | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Intelligent Switching and        | * |                              |
| Software, LLC, and               |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Radiant Holdings, Inc.,          | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Defendants.                      | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: May 15, 2008 Released: May 20, 2008**

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in substantial part a
    formal complaint[^1] filed by APCC Services, Inc. ("APCC") against
    Radiant Telecom, Inc. ("Radiant"), Intelligent Switching and
    Software, LLC ("ISS"), and Radiant Holdings, Inc. ("Radiant
    Holdings") (collectively, "Defendants") under section 208 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act").[^2] APCC alleges
    that Defendants violated sections 201, 276, and 416 of the Act[^3]
    by failing to comply with Commission payphone rules that impose
    compensation, call tracking, and other obligations on "Completing
    Carriers."[^4] The principal question presented is whether any of
    the Defendants is a completing carrier within the meaning of 47
    C.F.R. § 64.1300 and the orders implementing that regulation. As
    explained below, we find that whereas Radiant is a switchless
    reseller that bears no payment responsibility under our rules, ISS
    is a Completing Carrier. Because ISS has failed to comply with the
    payphone compensation rules, we order ISS to pay APCC damages in the
    amount of \$574,073.07, plus interest. Because we grant APCC's
    claims under section 201(b) of the Act, and such grant will afford
    APCC all the relief to which it would be entitled under sections 276
    and 416(c) of the Act, we dismiss without prejudice APCC's claims
    under sections 276 and 416(c) of the Act.

# BACKGROUND 

## Payphone Compensation Regime

2.  Section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs the Commission to "establish
    a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service
    providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed
    intrastate and interstate call using their payphone . . . ."[^5] The
    statute itself does not specify the entity that must pay
    compensation, but the Commission's orders and rules implementing the
    statutory directive establish payphone service providers' ("PSPs'")
    rights to compensation for calls made from their payphones.[^6]

3.  The Commission's task of establishing a per call compensation plan
    for coinless payphone calls is complex, for multiple entities may be
    involved in the transmission of a coinless call.[^7] The local
    exchange carrier ("LEC") serving the payphone transports the call to
    the switching facilities of an interexchange carrier ("IXC").[^8]
    Although the initial IXC may transport the call to the terminating
    LEC,[^9] often the initial IXC transports the call to a "reseller."
    The call may then be transported to one or more additional resellers
    before it is ultimately switched back to an IXC that transports the
    call to the terminating LEC.[^10] In almost all, if not all, such
    cases, however, one carrier that handles the call will collect money
    from the ultimate customer, or provide services directly to a
    switchless reseller that collects money from the ultimate customer,
    whether that retail end user is a calling card customer or a
    subscriber to a toll-free number. That carrier will process the call
    at the mid-point of the call stream, between the IXC that first
    accepts the call from the originating LEC and the IXC that finally
    hands the call to the terminating LEC.

4.  Some resellers possess the switching equipment required to perform
    the function of routing the call; other resellers (*i.e*.,
    "switchless resellers") lack such equipment, so they only resell the
    telecommunications service (*i.e.*, the ability of a customer to
    place a coinless payphone call), and rely on other carriers to
    perform the actual switching and transmission functions required to
    complete the call.[^11] Only resellers that possess switching
    equipment ("switch-based" resellers or SBRs) can physically receive
    the call and route it onward, either to the LEC serving the call
    recipient or to the switch of another reseller.[^12] Resellers
    typically do not own transmission facilities, but perform only
    switching and rely on IXCs to actually transport the call. However,
    any reseller may sell the underlying telecommunications service to
    the public, or to a switchless reseller. Such sales often take the
    form of prepaid calling cards, as they did in this case.[^13]

5.  The Commission has issued a series of orders addressing which
    carrier in the call path of a coinless payphone call should
    compensate the PSP.[^14] Prior to the implementation of the current
    payphone rules, the Commission required the "first underlying
    facilities-based interexchange carrier to whom the LEC directly
    delivers the call to compensate the PSP."[^15]

6.  The Commission revised that approach in the *Tollgate Order*,[^16]
    which placed the compensation obligation on the "Completing
    Carrier."[^17] A "Completing Carrier" is defined as "a long distance
    carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that completes a
    coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call or a
    local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless access code
    or subscriber toll-free payphone call."[^18]

7.  The Commission imposed the compensation obligation on Completing
    Carriers for two reasons. First, the Commission determined that
    Completing Carriers "are the primary economic beneficiaries of
    coinless payphone calls transferred to their switch." That is, the
    Completing Carrier sells the dial-around service to end-user
    customers (or provides switching for a switchless reseller who sells
    to the end-users) and can recover payphone compensation from those
    customers.[^19] Second, the Commission found that, given their
    position in the call stream, Completing Carriers "possess the most
    accurate call completion information for such calls."[^20]

8.  The *Tollgate Order* did not alter the obligations of switchless
    long distance resellers.[^21] In the case of switchless long
    distance resellers, the Commission has recognized since the *First
    Payphone* Order in 1996 that although they are the primary economic
    beneficiary for calls made by their customers, they do not have the
    facilities to track calls.[^22] In the interests of lower costs and
    administrative convenience, the Commission placed the responsibility
    on the entity with control over the tracking data, the underlying
    facilities-based long distance carrier, to compensate the PSPs on
    the switchless reseller's behalf.[^23] The underlying
    facilities-based long distance carrier may recover payphone
    compensation from its switchless reseller customers.[^24]

9.  To ensure that Completing Carriers compensate PSPs for each and
    every completed payphone call,[^25] a Completing Carrier must, in
    addition to paying compensation, also (i) establish a call tracking
    system that accurately tracks coinless payphone calls to
    completion;[^26] (ii) provide quarterly Completing Carrier reports
    to PSPs listing the coinless payphone calls completed by the
    Completing Carrier;[^27] and (iii) undergo a call tracking system
    audit by an independent third party and provide to the Commission
    and PSPs reports attesting to the accuracy of the system.[^28]

10. As an additional measure to ensure that all payphone call activity
    is traced and accounted for, the Commission's rules also impose
    requirements on carriers that carry payphone traffic but do not
    themselves complete those calls. An "Intermediate Carrier" is
    defined as a "facilities-based long distance carrier that switches
    payphone calls to other facilities-based long distance
    carriers."[^29] An Intermediate Carrier also must, every quarter,
    submit a call data report to each PSP that contains certain
    information about the calls that the Intermediate Carrier switched
    to other long distance carriers.[^30] The quarterly reports provided
    by Intermediate Carriers are intended to help PSPs ensure that they
    are getting appropriate compensation from Completing Carriers.

## The Coinless Payphone Calls at Issue 

11. Radiant is a calling card provider that issues calling cards in its
    name and on behalf of other entities.[^31] Radiant does not own or
    lease a switch.[^32] ISS is a facilities-based provider that offers
    calling card processing services and call switching to calling card
    providers, including Radiant.[^33] Radiant Holdings is the parent
    company of ISS,[^34] is not a carrier, and, like Radiant, does not
    own or lease a switch.[^35]

12. The coinless payphone calls at issue here were made by end-user
    customers with prepaid calling cards issued by Radiant and other
    calling card providers.[^36] The calls took the following path: A
    LEC routed the call from the payphone to an IXC, which, in turn,
    routed the call to a switch owned by ISS. The ISS switch and calling
    card processing platform prompted the caller to provide his or her
    calling card account number, verified the account number, and then
    switched the call to another switch, owned by Ntera, which then
    selected the IXC that offered the lowest cost on that call. Ntera
    switched the call to that IXC, which, in turn, transferred the call
    to a LEC for termination at the called party's phone. The ISS
    switching platform determined whether the call was completed for
    purposes of billing the caller.[^37]

13. APCC is a billing and collections agent for PSPs, including the PSPs
    on whose behalf APCC brings the Complaint ("represented PSPs").[^38]
    Defendants have not compensated APCC or the represented PSPs for any
    of the calling card calls delivered from the represented PSPs'
    payphones to the ISS switch during the third and fourth quarters of
    2004.[^39] Nor have Defendants provided Completing Carrier reports
    or call tracking system audit reports for that period, or otherwise
    complied with the Commission's "Completing Carrier" rules.[^40]

# DISCUSSION

## Threshold Defenses

14. We begin by addressing two preliminary legal defenses that
    Defendants raise. First, Defendants argue that the Complaint should
    be dismissed because the Commission's rules do not permit class
    actions.[^41] We disagree that APCC's complaint presents a class
    action case. A class action is a suit brought by "one or more
    members of a class ... as representative parties on behalf of all
    \[members of the class\]."[^42] APCC's Complaint was not brought by
    a member of a class, but by an agent (APCC) on behalf of its
    principals (the represented PSPs).[^43] APCC's status as an agent
    thus distinguishes the cases relied upon by Defendants, in which a
    member of a class filed the complaint.[^44]

15. Next, Defendants argue that APCC does not have standing because it,
    as opposed to the PSPs it represents, has not been damaged by
    Defendants' alleged failure to pay payphone compensation.[^45] We
    reject this argument as well. Section 208 of the Act "explicitly
    confers standing upon 'any person' to complain of alleged wrongdoing
    by a common carrier, without regard to injury suffered or direct
    interest in the matter."[^46]

## "Completing Carrier" Analysis

16. This case turns on whether either Radiant or ISS is a "Completing
    Carrier" within the meaning of our rules and orders. Rule 64.1300(a)
    defines a "Completing Carrier" as "a long distance carrier or
    switch-based long distance reseller that completes a coinless . . .
    payphone call . . . ,"[^47] and Rule 64.1300(b) places payment
    responsibility for dial around calls on "a Completing Carrier that
    completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone
    call from a switch that the Completing Carrier either owns or
    leases." Radiant and ISS contend that they are not Completing
    Carriers because in all cases calls that were handled by ISS's
    switch were subsequently sent to other carriers that performed
    switching functions. In that event, Radiant and ISS argue, some
    carrier downstream from them (not specifically identified) is the
    completing carrier. APCC contends that Radiant and ISS are
    Completing Carriers because their switch was the platform that
    performed calling card services and they were the primary economic
    beneficiaries of the calls, and that is the sense in which the
    Commission used the term "completing" in the *Tollgate Order*.

17. As an initial matter, Radiant itself is not liable for dial around
    compensation here. We find that Radiant is a switchless reseller
    that sold prepaid calling cards used to make some of the coinless
    payphone calls at issue here. Because it is not a switch-based
    reseller, Radiant cannot be a Completing Carrier liable for payment
    under Rule 64.1300(b). We therefore deny the Complaint with respect
    to Radiant.

18. ISS, by contrast, is a switch-based reseller and serves as the
    calling card processing platform for coinless calls placed via
    Radiant calling cards.[^48] Thus, ISS stands in the shoes of Radiant
    for purposes of the Completing Carrier analysis. For the reasons set
    forth below, we find that ISS is a Completing Carrier and is
    therefore responsible for compensating PSPs for dial around calls
    placed from their payphones. ISS's failure to pay the required
    compensation violated rule 64.1300 and section 201(b) of the Act.

19. Rule 64.1300(a) does not define what it means to "complete" a call
    -- the action that gives rise to payment liability -- in the context
    of a prepaid calling card call. That term has no fixed technical
    meaning.[^49] One possible interpretation, advanced by ISS, is that
    "completing" a call narrowly means serving as the final switch that
    directs the call to the terminating LEC. On that interpretation, ISS
    would not be a Completing Carrier because it does not serve as the
    last switch in the call chain. But another, broader, interpretation,
    put forth by APCC, is that "completing" a call means serving as the
    switch-based card processing platform on which a prepaid card call
    initially terminates and switching the call toward its ultimate
    destination. On that broader interpretation, ISS is a Completing
    Carrier.

20. We agree with APCC that § 64.1300 and *Tollgate Orders* use the term
    completion in the broader second sense described above. ISS's theory
    that the final switch before the terminating LEC completes the call
    is unsustainable on the face of the regulation, which defines a
    "Completing Carrier" as "a long distance carrier or *switch-based
    reseller* that completes" a dial-around call. But almost all, if not
    all, calls are ultimately handled by an IXC that not only transports
    the call but also necessarily performs some switching in order to
    route the call to the terminating LEC. If ISS were correct that
    "Completing Carrier" meant the last carrier to switch the call, an
    SBR would *never* be a Completing Carrier. ISS's interpretation
    would render the regulation's reference to switch based resellers
    meaningless. ISS's interpretation would also result in the unfair
    placement of payment liability on IXCs that did not, and could not,
    collect dial-around fees from the person that initiates the call.

21. That understanding is implicit in the *Tollgate Order*, which
    promulgated § 64.1300 and against which the regulation must be read.
    The *Tollgate Order* was premised on the idea of a three-part call
    chain in which an initial IXC carried the call from the originating
    LEC to the facilities of an SBR -- the Completing Carrier -- that
    could bill a customer (or in the case of an SBR like ISS that
    performed switching services for the billing switchless reseller)
    and that subsequently switched the call toward its final
    destination. The Completing Carrier was the middle link between the
    two legs of the call chain, even though multiple carriers might be
    involved in either leg. This is clear from the *Tollgate Order*'s
    extensive discussion about the Completing Carrier being the primary
    economic beneficiary of the call. The SBR that is the Completing
    Carrier, the Commission found, has "customers \[that\] use payphones
    in order to use the SBR's services to complete a call, whether it is
    a simple 800 number, a calling card, or a prepaid calling card. In
    other words, the PSPs provide services to the SBRs so that the SBRs
    can render services to their SBR customers. The SBR should be liable
    to pay for services rendered by its service providers."[^50] That
    description applies precisely to Radiant, which sold calling cards
    to customers and used ISS to perform its switching and billing
    services.[^51] "Completing Carrier" as used in the *Tollgate Order*
    did not refer to the last carrier to switch a call, but to the SBR
    that ultimately provided service to and collected money from the
    customer and thus was the primary economic beneficiary of the call.
    Here, that carrier is Radiant, and because ISS provides the relevant
    facilities-based services for Radiant, ISS is the Completing
    Carrier. It is no surprise that ISS in fact subtracted from the
    calling card accounts 28 cents per call to cover "FCC Mandated"
    "Payphone Charges."[^52] As we stated in paragraph 3 of the
    *Tollgate Reconsideration Order*, the Completing Carrier SBR is "the
    primary economic beneficiary \[of a coinless call\] because the
    SBR's customer pays the SBR for the payphone call." No other carrier
    in the call chain subsequent to ISS would have had an opportunity to
    collect dial-around compensation payments from a customer.

22. The *Tollgate Order* also defined "Completing Carrier" as "the
    carrier best able to determine whether a payphone originated call
    directed to a SBR switch has been answered by the called
    party."[^53] The Commission contrasted a Completing Carrier with
    other carriers in the call stream: an IXC "can track when the ...
    call begins and ends, but has no way of discerning: (1) whether the
    call it delivers is only on the first leg of the call from the
    end-user's location; and (2) whether the call is launched and
    answered as an end-to-end completed call."[^54] The Commission thus
    clearly contemplated that the Completing Carrier would *not*
    necessarily be the first or last carrier to switch a call, but
    rather the carrier in the call path with access to information about
    both legs of the call -- *i.e.*, the carrier that operates the
    "platform" on which call information is collected and
    processed.[^55] Again, ISS fits that description to a tee.

23. Consistent with that understanding, the *Tollgate Order* refers
    repeatedly to the Commission's intent to place payment liability on
    the carrier that owns the "platform" from which calls are
    "completed." For example, the *Tollgate Order* refers at paragraph 1
    to payment for "Payphone-originated calls that are completed on
    \[a\] facilities-based long distance carrier's platform." Paragraph
    43, discussing SBR audit reports, requires the SBR to send the
    report "to all PSPs for which the SBR completes payphone calls on
    its platform." Paragraph 36 states that the compensation must be
    paid by "the SBR on whose platform the coinless payphone call
    terminates." Paragraph 19 refers to the situation under the prior
    rule, where "PSPs lacked the information necessary to identify the
    origins of the calls switched to a SBR's platform." As mentioned
    above, ISS operates a platform on which calling card calls initially
    terminate and from which the calls are sent to their destinations
    for completion. Downstream IXCs do not operate such platforms.

24. ISS nevertheless claims that the Commission intended to place
    liability on the last carrier to switch a call to the terminating
    LEC. It relies on several points in the *Tollgate Reconsideration
    Order* in which the Commission stated (in various formulations) that
    "the last facilities-based long distance carrier in the call path
    that completes the call" must pay dial around compensation.[^56]
    That reliance is misplaced for several reasons. First, the snippets
    relied on by ISS do not establish a strict last-switch approach.
    Statements placing liability on the last-switch-based carrier *that
    completes the call* simply beg the question of what it means to
    complete a call. As shown above, completing a call as used in the
    *Tollgate Order* means processing it at a platform and routing it
    toward its final destination, not simply being the last switch in
    the call chain. References to the "last switch" were plainly meant
    to distinguish the rules established in the *Tollgate Order* from
    the prior rules, which placed liability on the first switch-based
    carrier. Second, even if the statements relied on by ISS did suggest
    a strict last-switch approach, three or four isolated fragments
    could not contradict the entire analytical framework of the
    *Tollgate Order* and the far more numerous references to calls being
    completed on a processing platform, as discussed above.

25. It is of no moment that ISS does not, as it claims, receive call
    answer supervision information. One of the fundamental
    responsibilities placed upon the Completing Carrier was to implement
    a call tracking system that was audited and certified. As part of
    fulfilling that responsibility, ISS was required to arrange to have
    access to answer supervision supplied by downstream IXCs. ISS failed
    to do so, and it may not now turn its regulatory default into an
    affirmative defense.

26. Neither is ISS an "Intermediate Carrier" within the meaning of our
    rules. Rule 64.1310(b) defines an intermediate carrier as "a
    facilities-based long distance carrier that switches payphone calls
    to other facilities-based long distance carriers."[^57] Because the
    category of Intermediate Carriers is mutually exclusive with that of
    Completing Carriers -- one cannot be both with respect to the same
    call -- the definition of Intermediate Carrier must be read to
    include an implied exception for Completing Carriers that switch a
    call to another carrier.[^58] Any other reading would result in the
    strict last-switch rule that we have shown above was not the rule we
    intended to adopt. We note that although ISS claims to be an
    Intermediate Carrier, it in fact filed no Intermediate Carrier
    reports, as required by § 64.1310(c). To the contrary, ISS has in
    the past paid dial-around compensation to PSPs.[^59]

27. In sum, we find that Radiant and the other calling card providers
    are switchless resellers that contracted with ISS, a
    facilities-based carrier, to complete payphone calls on their
    behalf. As such, for purposes of our payphone compensation rules,
    ISS was the "Completing Carrier" within the meaning of rule
    64.1300(a) for the payphone calls at issue.[^60]

## Damages

28. Because ISS is a Completing Carrier, it is required to pay
    compensation for every call completed during the third and fourth
    quarters of 2004. APCC argues that ISS should be liable for *all*
    calls delivered from the represented PSPs' payphones to ISS's
    switch, regardless of whether they were in fact completed.[^61] APCC
    notes that ISS violated Commission rules obligating Completing
    Carriers to track calls to completion, and that, as a result, it is
    not possible to determine the actual number of completed calls.[^62]
    Thus, APCC argues, "It is entirely appropriate to make the violator,
    rather than the innocent PSP, bear any loss from any
    'overpayments'...."[^63] In contrast, ISS proposes that we apply a
    proxy to ascertain the number of completed calls. Specifically, ISS
    debits end users' accounts for calls lasting 30 seconds or
    longer,[^64] and ISS contends that only these calls are
    "completed."[^65]

29. We decline to accept either party's proposal and, *based on the*
    *limited record* *in this case*, adopt a middle view. APCC's
    proposal of compensation for all calls regardless of whether they
    are actually completed would contravene section's 276 directive that
    compensation be paid only for "*completed* intrastate and interstate
    call\[s\]."[^66] In our view, it is implausible that every call
    delivered to ISS during the six months at issue was actually
    completed. We also believe that application of ISS's 30-second proxy
    under these circumstances, however, similarly would violate
    section 276. Clearly, application of the 30 second proxy as proposed
    would exclude any completed call that lasted fewer than 30 seconds.
    Moreover, ISS developed and understands the financial consequences
    of the 30-second proxy. In contrast, the represented PSPs did not
    have input into the proxy's development, nor could they be aware of
    its financial consequences. Use of the proxy here, then, would be
    tantamount to permitting ISS's unilateral negotiation of a
    reimbursement amount that does not reflect payment for *each and
    every* completed call to the represented PSPs as required under
    Section 276.

30. Because the Defendants failed to comply with the Commission's call
    tracking rules, we cannot ascertain the exact number of calls for
    which ISS is liable. Consequently, in order to ensure that the
    represented PSPs are adequately compensated, we believe it is
    appropriate to hold ISS liable not only for calls delivered from the
    represented PSPs payphones to ISS's switch lasting more than 30
    seconds, but also for a significant portion of those calls lasting
    less than thirty seconds. Accordingly, we find that 1,031,667 of the
    calls delivered to ISS's platform during the third quarter of 2004,
    and 660,876 of the calls delivered during the fourth quarter of
    2004, were completed.[^67] In this way, we endeavor to ensure that
    the represented PSPs collect the monies they are owed and that ISS
    is not unjustly enriched. We believe that the result reached here --
    although not perfect -- more accurately represents the number of
    calls that were, in fact, completed. We emphasize that this course
    is the result of ISS's willful failure to comply with the rules
    that, when followed by Completing Carriers, ensure that the mandates
    of Section 276 are achieved.[^68]

31. Finally, we remind Completing Carriers that, in addition to section
    208 complaint proceedings, any Completing Carrier that violates the
    Commission's call tracking rules can be found liable pursuant to
    section 503 of the Act, which provides for forfeitures against
    "\[a\]ny person who is determined by the Commission ... to have ...
    willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any... order issued by
    the Commission under this Act ...."[^69]

32. Defendants contend that the default rate for the fourth quarter of
    2004 should be computed at the \$.24 per call default rate rather
    than the \$.494 per call default rate subsequently established in
    the 2004 *Rate Increase Order.*[^70] Defendants rely on the fact
    that the increase in the default rate from \$0.24 to \$0.494 was not
    properly reflected in the Federal Register.[^71] We disagree.
    Regulations must be read in conjunction with all relevant
    promulgating orders.[^72] Thus, rule 64.1300 should be read in
    conjunction with the *Rate Increase Order,* which clearly and
    repeatedly stated that the per-call compensation rate for
    dial-around calls was to be raised from \$.24 per call to \$.494 per
    call.[^73] Moreover, it is "axiomatic that any regulation should be
    construed to effectuate the intent of the acting body."[^74] The
    Commission clearly intended to raise the per-call compensation rate
    to \$.494 per call; therefore rule 64.1300 must be construed so to
    state.[^75] Finally, Defendants were not confused or misled by the
    error in the *Federal Register*. On the contrary, Defendants discuss
    at length the fact that the initial dial-around rate was \$.24, that
    the *Rate Increase Order* increased that rate to \$.494, that the
    *Federal Register* should have been revised at subsection "d" to
    reflect this increase, and that it did not do so.[^76] Accordingly,
    the error is harmless, and Defendants' argument to the contrary
    lacks merit.[^77] We therefore multiply the third quarter number of
    calls by \$.24 and the fourth quarter 2004 calls by \$.494,
    resulting in damages of \$574,073.07.

33. In a similar vein, APCC requests that we award punitive damages
    against Defendants.[^78] Assuming, without deciding, that we have
    authority to award punitive damages, the facts here do not justify
    any such award because APCC has not shown that Defendants acted
    "'maliciously, wantonly or with a recklessness that betokens
    improper motive or vindictiveness.'"[^79]

34. Finally, we address the issue of the appropriate interest rate. The
    Commission has determined that, for the period at issue, unpaid
    dial-around compensation accrues interest at the rate of 11.25% per
    year.[^80] Under payphone industry practice, compensation for a
    dial-around call is due on the first day of the quarter that is one
    quarter after the one in which the billed call was made.[^81]
    Accordingly, prejudgment interest begins to accrue on the day
    compensation is due.[^82] Defendants argue that interest should be
    waived, or that the rate should be set in accordance with the
    statutory rate provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 because Defendants "had
    a solid legal basis for believing that no payments were due at
    all."[^83] As discussed, however, the Commission has expressly
    stated that unpaid dial-around compensation shall accrue interest at
    the rate of 11.25% per year. Defendants' asserted misunderstanding
    of the law cannot set aside a Commission rule in these
    circumstances.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

35. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201,
    and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 208, and sections 1.720-1.736 and
    64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736,
    64.1300-64.1320, that APCC Services, Inc.'s claims against
    Intelligent Switching and Software, LLC under section 201(b) of the
    Act are GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 208, 276,
    and 416 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, 276, and 416, and sections 1.720-1.736 and
    64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736,
    64.1300-64.1320, that APCC Services, Inc.'s claims against
    Intelligent Switching and Software, LLC under sections 276 and 416
    of the Act are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208,
    276, and 416 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208,
    276, and 416, and sections 1.720-1.736 and 64.1300-64.1320 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, 64.1300-64.1320, that
    APCC Services, Inc.'s claims against Radiant Telecom, Inc. and
    Radiant Holdings, Inc. are DENIED.

38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208,
    and 209 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 209, and sections 1.720-1.736 and
    64.1300-64.1320 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736,
    64.1300-64.1320, that, within 90 days of the release of this Order,
    Intelligent Switching and Software, LLC shall pay APCC Services,
    Inc. damages in the amount of \$574,073.07, together with interest
    on such damages at the rate of 11.25%, accruing on the first day of
    the quarter that is one quarter after the one in which the billed
    call was made.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

[^1]: Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-016 (filed Aug. 2, 2005)
    ("Complaint").

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 208.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 276, 416.

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a).

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1)(A). The Commission has interpreted the
    statutory term "completed call" to mean "a call that is answered by
    the called party." *In the Matter of Pay Telephone Reclassification
    and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19975, 19987, ¶ 25 (2003) ("*Tollgate
    Order*").

[^6]: *See, e.g., Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19976, ¶¶ 1-2.

[^7]: *See, e.g., APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel
    Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement
    Services, and Intera Communications Corp., Complainants, v. Network
    IP, LLC, and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Defendants*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073, 2075, ¶ 4 (2005) ("*Network
    Order*"); Order on Review, 21 FCC Rcd 10488 (2006). "Coin calls"
    placed from a payphone directly compensate the PSP for use of the
    payphone and are not involved in the Commission's payphone
    compensation rules, which pertain to coinless "dial around" calls in
    which the caller does not directly compensate the payphone operator
    (*e.g.,* 1-800 and other toll-free calls and calls using access
    codes to reach a service provider of choice). *See Network Order*,
    20 FCC Rcd at 2075, ¶ 4.

[^8]: *Network Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2075, ¶ 5.

[^9]: *Id*.

[^10]: *Id*.

[^11]: *Id*. at 2076, ¶ 6.

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *Id.* at ¶ 7.

[^14]: *See, e.g., First Payphone Compensation Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    20541 (1996); *Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification
    and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    First Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21233 (1996); Second
    Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 8098 (2001) ("*Second Order on
    Reconsideration*"), *vacated, Sprint Corp. v. FCC*, 315 F.3d 369
    (D.C. Cir. 2002) ("*Sprint v. FCC*").

[^15]: *Second Order on Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd at 8108, ¶ 21.

[^16]: *See generally Tollgate Order*; Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC
    Rcd 21457 (2004) ("*Tollgate Reconsideration Order*") (collectively,
    "*Tollgate Orders*").

[^17]: *Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20018 (Appendix C); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 64.1300(a).

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a).

[^19]: *See Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19988, ¶ 28; *Tollgate
    Reconsideration Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 21459, ¶ 3 ("In instances
    where an SBR completes a call dialed by the SBR's customer from a
    payphone, the Commission reasoned that the SBR was the primary
    economic beneficiary because the SBR's customer pays the SBR for the
    payphone call.").

[^20]: *Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19988, ¶¶ 26, 35.

[^21]: *Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19976, ¶ 1 n.1.

[^22]: *Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19978, ¶ 7.

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: As noted, a "completed" call is one that is answered by the
    called party. Calls that are not answered by the called party are
    not compensable.

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a)(1).

[^27]: *Id.* at § 64.1310(a)(4).

[^28]: *Id.* at § 64.1320(a), (b).

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(b).

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(c). Each quarterly report must be in computer
    readable format and include: (1) a list of all facilities-based long
    distance carriers to which the Intermediate Carrier switched access
    code and toll-free calls dialed from the PSP's payphone; (2) a list
    of all access code and toll-free numbers dialed from each PSP's
    payphones that local exchange carriers delivered to the Intermediate
    Carrier and the Intermediate Carrier switched to the identified long
    distance carrier; (3) the total volume of calls switched to each of
    these numbers; and (4) the name, address, and phone number of the
    individuals for each identified long distance carrier who serves as
    the Intermediate Carrier's contact at the identified carrier. *Id*.

[^31]: Second Revised Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed
    Facts, and Key Legal Issues, File No. EB-05-MD-016 (filed Aug. 1,
    2006) at 6, ¶ 36 ("Second Revised Joint Statement").

[^32]: *Id.* at 6, ¶ 38.

[^33]: Second Revised Joint Statement at 5, ¶ 34; 6, ¶ 41. ISS owns the
    switch it uses in providing these services. *Id.* at 5, ¶ 32.

[^34]: Second Revised Joint Statement at 2, ¶ 9. FCC filings state that
    Radiant Holdings is also Radiant's parent company. *See id.* at 2, ¶
    7. Defendants assert, however, that Radiant was spun off from
    Radiant Holdings in 2003. Revised Answer to Formal Complaint, File
    No. EB-05-MD-016 (filed Oct. 7, 2005) ("Revised Answer") at 8, ¶ 7.
    Radiant Holdings changed its name to Ntera Holdings, Inc. on March
    23, 2004. Second Revised Joint Statement at 2, ¶ 8.

[^35]: Second Revised Joint Statement at 5, ¶ 29. On or about November
    27, 2006, Defendants sought in Florida state court an Assignment for
    the Benefit of Creditors of each of the Defendants (which appears to
    be akin to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding under federal
    bankruptcy laws). *See* Notice Regarding (1) Change of Counsel Law
    Firm Affiliation, (2) Withdrawal of Counsel, and (3) Assessment of
    Defendants' Assignment for the Benefit of Creditor Filings, File No.
    EB-05-MD-016 (filed Jan. 19, 2007) at 2. Defendants' counsel since
    have withdrawn from the proceeding before the FCC, and no new
    counsel have entered an appearance in the FCC proceeding. *See*
    Letter to Albert H. Kramer, Robert F. Aldrich and Jacob S. Farber,
    counsel for Complainant, and Christopher W. Savage and Michael C.
    Sloan, counsel for Defendants, from Lia B. Royle, Special Counsel,
    EB, MDRD, FCC (dated Mar. 5, 2007).

[^36]: Second Revised Joint Statement at 7, ¶¶ 44, 46, 47.

[^37]: *Id.* at 5-6, ¶¶ 29-41; 8, ¶ 58; 10, ¶ 77.

[^38]: Second Revised Joint at 2, ¶¶ 1-3.

[^39]: *Id.* at 9, ¶ 60; 10, ¶ 79.

[^40]: *Id.* at 8, ¶¶ 56-57.

[^41]: Revised Answer at 1, 3 n.7, 4 n.10, 6-7 ¶¶ 1-2.

[^42]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).

[^43]: *See* Second Revised Joint Statement at 2, ¶¶ 1-4; Complaint Ex.
    4 (Jaeger Dec'n) at ¶¶ 4-6; Reply at 24-25.

[^44]: *See* Revised Answer at 1 (citing *Halprin, Temple, Goodman &
    Sugrue v. MCI Telecomm. Corp.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC
    Rcd 22568 (1998) and *Orloff v. Vodafone Airtouch Licenses LLC*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 8987 (2002)).

[^45]: Revised Answer at 2 n.1.

[^46]: *Philippine Long Distance Tel. Co. v. Int'l Telecom, Ltd.*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15001, 15005, ¶ 9 (1997).
    *Accord American Message Centers v. Sprint*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5522, 5523, ¶ 6 (1993), *petition for review denied
    sub nom., AMC v. FCC*, 50 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1995). *Cf. APCC
    Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co.*, 418 F.3d 1238, 1242-45
    (D.C. Cir. 2005), *vacated and remanded on other grounds*, 127 S.
    Ct. 2094 (2007) (holding that aggregators (including APCC), acting
    as assignees for PSPs, had standing to sue in federal district court
    to recover dial-around compensation for coinless payphone calls).

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a) (emphasis added).

[^48]: Revised Answer at 8 ¶ 6 ("ISS operates a hardware and software
    calling card platform that is used to provide service to Radiant and
    other calling card providers.") & 35 (describing "calling
    card/switching platforms operated by ISS").

[^49]: We have used "complete" to mean answered by the called party, but
    that is obviously not the sense of the word as used in § 64.1300.
    The "Completing Carrier" switches the call to "completion" whether
    or not it is answered by the called party.

[^50]: *Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19989, ¶ 29.

[^51]: *See* Second Revised Joint Statement at 14 ¶ 104 ("There are
    three functions involved in a prepaid dial-around call: (1) the
    originating IXC function; (2) the platform process/switching
    function; and (3) the terminating IXC function whereby the call is
    transported to the terminating LEC.")

[^52]: *See* Second Revised Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts at 7
    ¶43.

[^53]: *Tollgate Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19992, ¶ 35.

[^54]: *Id*.

[^55]: *Id*.

[^56]: Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Christopher W.
    Savage and Michael C. Sloan, counsel for Defendants (dated Sept. 12,
    2006) at 1-2 (citing *Tollgate Reconsideration Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    21463, ¶¶ 2, 3, 12 (emphasis added)).

[^57]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(b).

[^58]: Indeed, although we need not decide the matter in this case, it
    would seem that the most logical understanding of Intermediate
    Carrier would be those carriers that switch a call to a Completing
    Carrier, but not those coming later in the call stream. Once the
    Intermediate Carriers have notified the PSP of the Completing
    Carrier responsible for payment and call tracking, the PSP has no
    significant need to know what carriers subsequent to the Completing
    Carrier were involved in switching the call to termination.

[^59]: *See* Second Revised Joint Statement at 3-4.

[^60]: We deny APCC's Motion to Strike Portions of Revised Answer, File
    No. EB-05-MD-016 (filed Oct. 20, 2005), because our disposition of
    the Complaint renders the issues in that motion moot.

[^61]: Complaint at 28-29, ¶¶ 78-80; Reply at 32-25, ¶¶ 54-61.

[^62]: Complaint at 28, ¶ 78; Reply at 34, ¶¶ 59-60.

[^63]: Reply at 33, ¶ 57.

[^64]: Second Revised Joint Statement at 8, ¶ 55; Answer Exh. 1 (Asad
    Decl.) at ¶ 7, Exh. 6 (Yelutas Decl.) at ¶ 8.

[^65]: Second Revised Joint Statement at 22-23, ¶ 171.

[^66]: 47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1) (emphasis added).

[^67]: ISS admits that the represented PSPs delivered 1,618,044 calls to
    ISS's platform in the third quarter of 2004, of which 445,290 calls
    were completed using ISS's thirty-second proxy, and that the
    represented PSPs delivered 1,132,857 calls to ISS's platform in the
    fourth quarter of 2004, of which 188,896 calls were completed using
    ISS's thirty-second proxy. Second Revised Joint Statement at 22, ¶¶
    171-72. Adding to the number of calls lasting 30 seconds or longer
    the number of calls mid-way between the parties' respective
    proffered numbers, we conclude that 1,031,667 of the calls delivered
    to ISS's platform during the third quarter of 2004 (*i.e.*,
    445,290 + .5(1,618,044-445,290)), and 660,876 of the calls delivered
    during the fourth quarter of 2004 (*i.e.*, 188,896 +
    .5(1,132,857-188,896)), were completed.

[^68]: The Commission has discretion to conduct proceedings "in such
    manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and
    to the ends of justice," 47 U.S.C. § 154(j), and is obligated to
    award damages to which the complainant is entitled. 47 U.S.C. § 209.
    *See* *APCC Services, Inc. v. TS Interactive, Inc.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10456, 10462, ¶ 16 (Enf. Bur. 2004)
    (where the record contains no call-detail records or other evidence
    establishing the number of calls actually completed, payphone
    compensation may be awarded based upon a "reasonable" estimation of
    call completion rates).

[^69]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).

[^70]: *Request to Update Default Compensation Rate for Dial-Around
    Calls from Payphones*, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15636 (2004)
    ("*Rate Increase Order*"). *See* Answer at 37-42.

[^71]: Answer at 40-41. In the *Rate Increase Order*, the Commission
    raised the default per-call compensation rate from \$.24 to \$.494.
    Therefore, rule 64.1300 as published in the *Federal Register*
    should have been revised at section (d) to state, "the carrier is
    obligated to compensate the \[PSP\] at a per-call rate of \$.494."
    Instead, the *Federal Register* stated as follows:

    > \(b\) Except as provided herein, a Completing Carrier ... shall
    > compensate the \[PSP\] for that \[dial-around\] call at a rate
    > agreed upon by the parties by contract.
    >
    > \(c\) In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph a
    > \[*sic*\] of this section, the carrier is obligated to compensate
    > the PSP at a per-call rate of \$.494.
    >
    > \(d\) In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph b of
    > this section, the carrier is obligated to compensate the PSP at a
    > per-call rate of \$.24.

    This error has been corrected. *Request to Update Default
    Compensation Rate for Dial-Around Calls from Payphones*, Erratum, 20
    FCC Rcd 20231 (2005).

[^72]: Thus, for example, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
    Commission's rule obligating incumbent LECs to combine network
    elements, 47 C.F.R. § 315(c)-(d), on the basis of a limitation
    expressed not in the rule itself, but rather in the text of the
    order promulgating that rule. *Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC*,
    535 U.S. 467, 535-39 (2002) (citing *Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, First
    Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 15499, 15648 ¶ 294 (1996) (subsequent
    history omitted)). *See United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC*, 400
    F.3d 29, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding that Commission rule 52.21, 47
    C.F.R. § 52.21, does not obligate wireline carriers to provide
    location portability because the promulgating order so states)
    (citing *Telephone Number Portability*, First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8356, ¶ 6
    (1996); *Wyoming Outdoor Council v. USFS*, 165 F.3d 43, 53 (D.C.
    Cir. 1998) (reviewing a regulation's preamble as "evidence
    concerning contemporaneous agency intent"); *New York State Comm'n
    on Cable Television v. FCC*, 571 F.2d 95, 97-98 (2d Cir. 1978)
    (construing Commission rule 76.31(b), 47 C.F.R. § 76.31(b), in light
    of the order promulgating that rule).

[^73]: *See* *Rate Increase Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15665, ¶ 92 ("\[W\]e
    find that...it is appropriate to prescribe an increased default
    dial-around compensation rate of \$.494 per call"); *id.* at 15637,
    15661, ¶¶ 1, 80.

[^74]: *United States v. Miller*, 303 F.2d 703, 707 (9^th^ Cir. 1962).
    *Accord* *United States v. Eastern of New Jersey, Inc.*, 770 F.
    Supp. 964, 976 (D. N.J. 1991); *United States v. Unitank Terminal
    Serv.*, 724 F. Supp. 1158, 1165 (E.D. Pa. 1989); *Harnischfeger
    Corp. v. EPA*, 515 F. Supp. 1310, 1314 (E.D. Wisc. 1981); *Diaz v.
    INS*, 648 F. Supp. 638, 644 (E.D. Cal. 1986).

[^75]: Relying on *Lal v. INS*, 255 F.3d 998, 1004 (9^th^ Cir. 1999),
    Defendants argue that "an agency's regulations, as published in the
    *Federal Register*, take precedence over the text of a conflicting
    agency order." Answer at 41. *Lal* stands for no such proposition.
    The "conflicting agency order" in *Lal* was an appeal board's
    subsequent interpretation of an existing rule, not, as here, an
    agency order that promulgates, and explains, a revised rule.

[^76]: *See e.g.,* Answer at 4 (admitting that "the Commission may have
    intended to raise that rate from \$0.24 to \$0.494 per call," and
    citing the *Rate Increase Order*), Answer at 31-33, 38.

[^77]: *See* *United States Telecom Ass'n*, 400 F.3d at 41 (mislabeling
    a notice of proposed rulemaking as a request for comments on a
    petition for declaratory rulemaking was not fatal where the error
    was "plainly harmless").

[^78]: Complaint at 31-35, ¶¶ 85-96.

[^79]: *Halprin, Temple, Goodman, & Sugrue v. MCI Telecomm. Corp.*, 13
    FCC Rcd 22568, 22582, ¶ 31 (1998) (citing *Strouth v. Western Union
    Telegraph Co.*, Initial Decision, 70 FCC 2d 525 (1977), *aff'd in
    relevant part*, 70 FCC 2d 506 (Rev. Bd. 1978)).

[^80]: *See, e.g.*, *APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network
    Enhanced Services, LLP*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd
    4286, 4291-92, ¶ 11 (2007) ("*APCC v. NetworkIP*"); *Request to
    Update Default Compensation Rate for Dial-Around Calls from
    Payphones*, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15636, 15661, ¶ 79 (2004);
    *Bell Atlantic -- Delaware, Inc. v. Frontier Communications
    Services, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8112,
    8115, ¶ 17 & n.43 (2001); *Implementation of the Pay Telephone
    Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Third Report and Order, and Order
    on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2545,
    2630-31, ¶ 189 (1999); *Implementation of the Pay Telephone
    Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
    1778, 1805-06, ¶¶ 59-60 (1997) (some subsequent history omitted).

[^81]: *APCC v. NetworkIP*, 22 FCC Rcd at 4292, ¶ 11.

[^82]: *See, e.g.*, *id.; Implementation of the Pay Telephone
    Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Fifth Order on Reconsideration and
    Order on Remand, 17 FCC Rcd 21274, 21308, ¶ 101 (2002);
    *Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, AT&T
    Request for Limited Waiver of the Per-call Compensation Obligation,
    13 FCC Rcd 10893, 10895, ¶ 3 (1998).

[^83]: Answer at 46, ¶ 81; *id*. at 57, ¶ 128.