Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Direct Dial Audio Corp., )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) File No. EB-02-MD-037
)
Verizon Communications, Inc. )
and SBC Communications, Inc., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: December 12, 2002 Released: December
13, 2002
By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. On or about October 9, 2002, Direct Dial Audio Corp.
(``DDA'') filed with the Commission documents complaining
about alleged violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (``Act''), by Verizon Communications, Inc.
(``Verizon'') and SBC Communications, Inc. (``SBC'').1 These
filings appear to be but the latest shots fired in a multi-
forum, multi-year battle waged by DDA against Verizon and
SBC.2
2. It is difficult to discern precisely what these documents
purport to be under the Commission's rules. Construing these
documents most liberally in favor of DDA, we will assume that
they were intended to be either applications for review of a
Commission staff decision to close an informal complaint
proceeding initiated by DDA pursuant to sections 1.711-1.718
of the Commission's rules,3 or formal complaints pursuant to
sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules.4 In either
situation, for the reasons described below, DDA's filings are
patently meritless, almost to the point of being frivolous.
3. In 2001, DDA filed with the Commission an informal complaint
against Verizon and SBC concerning essentially the same
circumstances as those described in the documents filed by DDA
in this matter.5 Both SBC and Verizon responded to DDA's
informal complaint on June 15, 2001.6 Commission staff closed
that proceeding no later than March 21, 2002, when Commission
staff notified DDA in writing that ``the Consumer Information
Bureau has closed the file on the above referenced informal
complaint, in accordance with Section 1.717 of the
Commission's Rules.''7
4. Under the Commission's rules, if DDA was dissatisfied with
either the defendants' responses or the Commission's closure
of the informal complaint proceeding, DDA's remedy was to
timely file a formal complaint, not to file an application for
review.8 Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that DDA could
have properly filed an application for review, DDA failed to
do so within the 30-day period prescribed by section 1.115(d)
of the Commission's rules.9 Thus, if the instant filings are,
indeed, applications for review, they must be dismissed.
5. If, on the other hand, the instant filings are formal
complaints, they fail to conform to the Commission's rules in
ways too numerous to mention.10 Thus, the instant filings
must be dismissed for these failures, as well.
6. In conclusion, we note that the Federal Court Opinions found
DDA's filings in those matters to be so frivolous as to
warrant an award of attorney fees as a sanction for violation
of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The instant filings in this matter
approach a similar level of frivolousness, and the Commission,
like federal courts, forbids such improper submissions.11
Consequently, we urge DDA and its counsel to act in accordance
with this prohibition in the future.7. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to sections
1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and sections
1.52, 1.115(d), and 1.711-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. �� 1.52, 1.115(d), 1.711-1.736, and authority delegated
by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, the filings of DDA referenced herein
ARE DISMISSED, and the proceeding is TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Radhika V. Karmarkar
Deputy Chief, Market Disputes
Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 For administrative convenience, these filings have been
consolidated into one docket. See 47 U.S.C. � 154(j).
2 See, e.g., Direct Dial Audio Corp. v. SBC, et al., Case
No. 1:02cv44 (W.D.Mich. Sept. 16, 2002) (Hillman, J.); Direct
Dial Audio Corp. v. Verizon-GTE, et al., Case No. 1:02cv107
(W.D.Mich. Sept. 16, 2002) (Hillman, J.) (collectively, ``Federal
Court Opinions'').
3 47 C.F.R. �� 1.711-1.718.
4 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736.
5 Direct Dial Audio Corp. v. SBC and Verizon, IC-01-
N50387.
6 See Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Thomas D. Wyatt,
Associate Chief, Consumer Information Bureau, FCC to David
Walker, Direct Dial Audio Corp., Direct Dial Audio Corp. v. SBC
and Verizon, IC-01-N50387.
7 Id.
8 See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.717-1.718.
9 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(d).
10 See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.722.
11 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 1.52; Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd
3030 (1996).