********************************************************    
                                       NOTICE
  ********************************************************
                              
              This document was converted from
         WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
                              
 Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
           will not show up in this text version.
                              
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
  original document will not show up in this text version.
                              
      Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
         will not be preserved in the text version.
                              
      If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
                              
*****************************************************************
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) 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 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).  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.

                        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.  In the Call-Back Proceeding, 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.  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."  

     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."  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."  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.

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; (2) Global Link was acting as a common carrier
in its provision of service to the Philippines and was, therefore, subject to Commission regulation;
(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; and (4)
Global Link violated the requirements of the Commission's Call-Back Proceeding and section 214
of the Act.  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.
                                
                        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.  Finally, Global Link contends that the
Philippine government has not prohibited call-back using uncompleted call signalling.  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.  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, and, (2) foreign governments may obtain the Commission's assistance in enforcing
their prohibition against call-back by following certain procedures.  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" 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.  The Bureau did not abandon the Commission's "sensible
policy" of requiring foreign governments to follow certain procedures in seeking the
Commission's assistance.  Indeed, the Bureau acknowledged the value of these procedures.  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.  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 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, we find that the Bureau correctly reached the
same conclusion in the instant case.  

              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.  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

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."  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.