**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE )

TELEPHONE COMPANY, )

Complainant, )

)

v\. ) File No. E-95-33

)

USA GLOBAL LINK, INC., )

Defendant. )

######### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REVIEW

Adopted: March 22, 2000; Released: March 29, 2000

By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a separate
statement.

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. In this *Order*, we deny an Application for Review (Application for
Review) filed by USA Global Link, Inc. (Global Link)[^1] concerning the
lawfulness of providing call-back access to customers located in the
Philippines. Global Link asks us to reverse the Memorandum Opinion and
Order[^2] issued by the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau), in which the
Bureau granted a complaint filed against Global Link by the Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).[^3] The Bureau found that Global
Link violated Commission orders by using the uncompleted call signalling
configuration of call-back to provide international service to customers
in the Philippines, where the use of call-back is unlawful. For the
reasons discussed below, we deny Global Link\'s Application for
Review.[^4]

**II. BACKGROUND**

**A. The Call-Back Proceeding**

2\. \"Call-back\" is a technology used to provide international
telecommunications service from a foreign country through a U.S.
switch.[^5] In the *Call-Back Proceeding*,[^6] the Commission stated
generally that the use of call‑back utilizing uncompleted call
signalling was consistent with its policy favoring resale of
international switched service.[^7] The Commission concluded that
call-back \"advances the public interest, convenience, and necessity by
promoting competition in international markets and driving down
international phone rates, \[and that it\] is in the best interests of
consumers\--and eventually of economic growth\--around the world.\"[^8]

3\. Notwithstanding this procompetitive policy, the Commission required
U.S. carriers to provide call-back service \"in a manner that is
consistent with the laws of countries in which they operate.\"[^9] The
Commission reaffirmed this requirement in its *Reconsideration Order*,
stating that \"U.S.-based carriers may not offer international call-back
using uncompleted call signalling in countries that have specifically
prohibited this practice.\"[^10] Subsequently, the Commission found a
carrier to have violated the requirements of the *Call Back Proceeding*
by offering international call-back services in the Philippines.[^11]

**B. The PLDT Complaint**

4\. On July 5, 1995, PLDT filed a complaint with the Commission
alleging, *inter alia*, that Global Link violated the Commission\'s
requirements in the *Call-Back Proceeding* by offering international
common carrier service using call-back to customers in the Philippines,
a country that prohibited such service. In the *Global Link Order*, the
Bureau reached the following conclusions: (1) pursuant to section 208 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), PLDT had standing
to file its complaint against Global Link;[^12] (2) Global Link was
acting as a common carrier in its provision of service to the
Philippines and was, therefore, subject to Commission regulation;[^13]
(3) PLDT made a sufficient showing under the criteria set out in the
*Call-Back Proceeding* that the Philippine government had declared the
use of call-back in its country to be unlawful;[^14] and (4) Global Link
violated the requirements of the Commission\'s *Call-Back Proceeding*
and section 214 of the Act.[^15] Based on its conclusions, the Bureau
directed Global Link to terminate its service to the Philippines to the
extent that it used the uncompleted call signalling configuration of
call-back.[^16]

**III. DISCUSSION**

5\. In its Application for Review, Global Link argues that the Bureau
erred in granting PLDT\'s complaint in the *Global Link Order*. Global
Link asserts that the Bureau failed to apply certain procedures
specified in the *Call-Back Reconsideration* relating to the manner in
which the Commission may assist a foreign government in enforcing that
country\'s prohibition against call-back. Global Link contends that the
Bureau departed from Commission precedent and policy and failed to
explain adequately its reasons for doing so.[^17] Finally, Global Link
contends that the Philippine government has not prohibited call-back
using uncompleted call signalling.[^18] We address these arguments
below. We note at the outset, however, that some of Global Link\'s
arguments ultimately question the wisdom of the Commission's policy on
international call-back. In resolving this formal complaint proceeding,
we apply existing Commission rules and orders, and our decision here has
no bearing on our evaluation of whether to modify these policies in the
future.

**A. International Comity and Call-Back**

6\. We reject Global Link\'s assertion that the Bureau incorrectly
accorded to a foreign private interest rights properly accorded only to
foreign governments.[^19] Global Link correctly states that the
*Call-Back Reconsideration* outlines procedures that foreign governments
must follow before enlisting the Commission\'s aid in enforcing
restrictions on call-back. Global Link contends that the omission of any
discussion of private parties in connection with those procedures
indicated that the Commission did not intend to apply the principles of
comity to non-governmental parties.

7\. In the *Call-Back Proceeding*, the Commission made two distinct
rulings: (1) U.S. carriers may not provide service using call‑back to
countries where call-back was clearly prohibited,[^20] and, (2) foreign
governments may obtain the Commission\'s assistance in enforcing their
prohibition against call-back by following certain procedures.[^21] The
*Call-Back Proceeding* does not, however, preclude a nongovernmental
entity from filing an individual complaint under section 208 of the Act.
The Bureau correctly determined that PLDT\'s complaint was properly
filed pursuant to section 208 of the Act. It was filed by a
\"person\"[^22] against a carrier (Global Link) for actions that would
constitute a violation of the Act, a Commission order, or a Commission
rule. The procedures described in the *Call-Back Proceeding* do not
preclude the otherwise proper filing of a section 208 complaint by a
private party.

**B. Procedural Requirements of the Call-Back Proceeding**

8\. We also reject Global Link\'s contention that the Bureau abandoned
the procedural requirements established by the Commission in the
*Call-Back Proceeding* by not applying them to PLDT, a nongovernmental
entity.[^23] The Bureau did not abandon the Commission\'s \"sensible
policy\"[^24] of requiring foreign governments to follow certain
procedures in seeking the Commission\'s assistance. Indeed, the Bureau
acknowledged the value of these procedures.[^25] The instant proceeding,
however, is not a matter of mutual cooperation between governments, but
rather a dispute between private parties. Furthermore, the Commission
previously held in the *ITL Order* that PLDT was not required to follow
the procedures set forth in the *Call-Back Proceeding* for foreign
governments seeking U.S. law enforcement assistance.[^26] We conclude,
therefore, that the Bureau did not err by making the same determination
here.

**C. Call-Back Using Uncompleted Call Signalling Is Prohibited In The
Philippines**

9\. The Commission determined in the *ITL Order*[^27] that PLDT had
provided a sufficient showing under the criteria established in the
*Call-Back Proceeding* that the government of the Philippines had
prohibited call-back in that country. Based upon the same evidence the
Commission considered in the *ITL Proceeding*,[^28] we find that the
Bureau correctly reached the same conclusion in the instant case.[^29]

**IV. CONCLUSION and ORDERING CLAUSES**

10\. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Bureau did
not err in its findings that Global Link violated the requirements of
the *Call-Back Proceeding*.[^30] We therefore deny Global Link\'s
Application for Review.

11\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
208, and 405 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, 405,
that the Application for Review filed by Global Link on September 12,
1997, IS DENIED.

12\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application for Review of *Ex Parte*
Determination filed by Global Link on January 12, 1998, IS DENIED.

13\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Consolidation filed by
Global Link on November 19, 1997, IS DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

# SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH {#separate-statement-of-commissioner-harold-furchtgott-roth .unnumbered}

Re: Philippine Long Distance Company v. International Telecom, Ltd.,
File No. E-95-29, Philippine Long Distance Company v. USA Global Link.
Inc., File No. E-95-33.

I have no qualms with the bottom lines reached in these two orders. In
fact, I believe that generally enforcement decisions should apply the
law as they find it. Here, we have held that "U.S. carriers may not
offer international call-back using uncompleted call signalling in
countries that have specifically prohibited this practice."[^31]
Therefore I believe it is proper to apply that standard to Global Link
and International Telecom.

Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that today's decisions in no way
reflect my endorsement of our current international call-back policies.
I am increasingly troubled by the idea that a foreign government can
limit the otherwise lawful operations of U.S. carriers. Despite the
Commission's conclusion that international call-back services are
pro-competitive and strengthen the marketplace, our current policy
allows a foreign government (often also the owner of the foreign
monopoly carrier) to snuff out these competitive services. In light of
these doubts and the pending rulemaking on this issue, I write
separately to clarify the limited nature of today's decisions.

[^1]: Global Link is an international long distance carrier, and its
    principal place of business is 50 North Third Street, Fairfield,
    Iowa 52556.

[^2]: *Philippine Long Distance Tel. Co. v. USA Global Link, Inc.*, 12
    FCC Rcd 12010 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997) (*Global Link Order*).

[^3]: PLDT is a private corporation that provides domestic and
    international telecommunications facilities and services in the
    Philippines, and is located at Ramon Cojuangco Building, Makati
    Avenue, Makati City, Philippines.

[^4]: We also deny Global Link\'s Application for Review (*Ex Parte*
    Application for Review) of the Bureau\'s decision denying Global
    Link\'s Request to Permit *Ex Parte* Presentations in this
    proceeding. *Philippine Long Distance Tel. Co. v. USA Global Link,
    Inc.*, 12 FCC Rcd 22039 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997). We note that a
    section 208 complaint proceeding is treated as a restricted
    proceeding from the day on which the matter is filed with the
    Commission. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1208. The Bureau hardly exceeded
    its discretion in complying with the rule. Furthermore, our decision
    denying Global Link\'s Application for Review effectively renders
    moot Global Link\'s *Ex Parte* Application for Review.

[^5]: *See Global Link Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12011. Although several
    configurations of call-back are currently in use, \"uncompleted call
    signalling\" is the only configuration that was at issue in the
    complaint proceeding. To use uncompleted call signalling call-back,
    a foreign customer calls a telephone number specified by the
    call-back provider and hangs up after a certain number of rings. The
    reseller\'s switch then places an outbound call to the foreign
    customer and provides the customer a U.S. dial tone that can be used
    to complete calls to the United States or elsewhere. The resulting
    call is placed at U.S.-tariffed rates, which are generally lower
    than those of the originating country. For the purpose of this
    proceeding, the term \"call-back\" will refer solely to the
    uncompleted call signalling configuration of call-back technology.

[^6]: *VIA USA, Ltd., Telegroup, Inc., Discount Call Int\'l Co.*, 9 FCC
    Rcd 2288 (1994) (*Call-Back Order*), *aff\'d on reconsideration*, 10
    FCC Rcd 9540 (1995) *(Call-Back Reconsideration*) (together
    *Call-Back Proceeding*). We note that the Commission currently has
    before it a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Commission
    reverse its comity-based policy articulated in the *Call-Back
    Proceeding*. Petition for Rulemaking of the Telecommunications
    Resellers Association to Eliminate Comity-Based Enforcement of Other
    Nation\'s Prohibitions Against the Uncompleted Call Signalling
    Configuration of International Call-Back Service, RM-9249 (filed
    Mar. 19, 1998).

[^7]: *Call-Back Reconsideration*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9541.

[^8]: *Id.*; *see also* *Call-Back Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 2290.

[^9]: *Call-Back Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 2292.

[^10]: *Call-Back Reconsideration*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9540-41, 9557-59.

[^11]: *Philippine Long Distance Tel. Co. v. Int\'l Telecom, Ltd.,
    d/b/a/ Kallback Direct*, 12 FCC Rcd 15001 (1997) (*ITL Order*).

[^12]: *Global Link Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12012-14

[^13]: *Id*. at 12014-18.

[^14]: *Id*. at 12018-19.

[^15]: *Id.* at 12019-21.

[^16]: *Id.* at 12021-22.

[^17]: *Id.* at 7-13.

[^18]: *Id.* at 13-17.

[^19]: Application for Review at 7.

[^20]: *Call-Back Reconsideration*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9557-58.

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: The term \"person\" includes an individual, partnership,
    association, joint-stock company, trust or corporation, 47 U.S.C. §
    153(32), and is broadly interpreted to include \"any member of the
    public\" when filing complaints against common carriers. *See Global
    Link Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12013 n.21.

[^23]: *Id.* at 10-13.

[^24]: Application for Review at 9.

[^25]: *Global Link Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12020.

[^26]: *ITL Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 15012.

[^27]: *ITL Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 15011-12.

[^28]: *Compare ITL Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 15011-12 *with* *Global Link
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12019.

[^29]: *Id.* at 15012a.

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. § 214.

[^31]: See VIA USA Ltd., Telegroup Inc., Discount Call International Co.
    9 FCC Rcd 2288 (1994) *aff'd on reconsideration*, 10 FCC Rcd 9540,
    9557-59 (1995).