*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 10558.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1784 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Implementation  of  the  Pay  Telephone 
 Reclassification  and  Compensation  Provisions 
 of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 CC  Docket  No.  96-  128 
 File  No.  NSD-  L-  99-  34 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  July  25,  2001  Released:  July  26,  2001 
 By  the  Senior  Deputy  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau: 
 1.  On  May  25,  2001,  Sprint  Corporation  filed  a  request  for  an  administrative  stay  pending 
 judicial  review  of  the  Commission’s  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration  in  the  above-  captioned  docket.  1 
 In  the  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  the  Commission  addressed  the  question  of  which  long  distance 
 carrier  is  responsible  for  payment  of  compensation  to  a  payphone  service  provider  (“  PSP”)  for  coinless 
 payphone  calls  that  are  routed  to  the  network  of  a  facilities-  based  interexchange  carrier  (“  IXC”),  and  then 
 to  one  or  more  long  distance  resellers,  before  being  transferred  to  a  local  exchange  carrier  (“  LEC”)  for 
 completion.  Because  Sprint  has  failed  to  demonstrate  that  it  will  suffer  irreparable  harm  if  denied  a  stay 
 and  because  it  is  our  judgment  that  granting  a  stay  would  jeopardize  the  public  interest,  we  deny  Sprint’s 
 request  for  an  administrative  stay. 


 2.  In  section  276  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  Congress  directed  the 
 Commission  “to  ensure  that  all  payphone  service  providers  are  fairly  compensated  for  each  and  every 
 completed  intrastate  and  interstate  call  using  their  payphone.”  2  Congress  adopted  this  provision  in  large 
 measure  to  “promote  the  widespread  deployment  of  payphone  services  to  the  benefit  of  the  general 
 public.”  3  In  the  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  the  Commission  determined  that,  because  a  PSP  has 
 no  independent  means  of  identifying  a  reseller  to  which  a  coinless  call  is  routed  by  a  facilities-  based  IXC 
 or  of  tracking  calls  received  by  a  reseller,  the  PSP  is  placed  at  a  significant  disadvantage  if  forced  to 
 collect  per-  call  compensation  directly  from  resellers.  4  The  Commission  further  determined,  on  the  basis 
 of  the  record  before  it,  that  an  underlying  facilities-  based  carrier  that  has  a  customer  relationship  with  a 
 long  distance  reseller  is  in  the  best  position  to  track,  and  pay  compensation  to  PSPs  for,  coinless  calls 
 made  from  payphones.  5  Accordingly,  in  an  effort  to  ensure  that  PSPs  receive  the  compensation  to  which 


 1  Implementation  of  the  Pay  Telephone  Reclassification  and  Compensation  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications 
 Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  128,  NSD  File  No.  99-  34,  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  2001  WL  327634  (rel. 
 April  5,  2001)  (“  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration”). 


 2  47  U.  S.  C.  §  276(  b)(  1)(  A)  (emphasis  added). 


 3  47  U.  S.  C.  §  276(  b)(  1). 
 4  Second  Order  on  Reconsideration,  ¶  15. 
 5  Id.,  ¶  16. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1784 
 2 
 they  are  entitled  by  explicit  statutory  command,  the  Commission  determined  that  the  first  facilities-  based 
 IXC  to  which  a  LEC  delivers  a  coinless  payphone  call  must  compensate  the  PSP  when  the  underlying 
 carrier  routes  the  call  to  a  switch-  based  reseller.  6  The  Commission  permitted  facilities-  based  carriers  to 
 obtain  reimbursement  from  their  reseller  customers,  both  for  payments  made  to  PSPs  for  coinless  calls 
 routed  to  their  reseller  customers,  and  for  costs  associated  with  tracking  those  calls.  7 


 3.  Given  that  Sprint  is  free  to  recover  from  its  switch-  based  reseller  customers  all  costs 
 associated  with  the  performance  of  any  additional  functions  that  may  be  required  under  the  Second  Order 
 on  Reconsideration,  we  conclude  that  Sprint  has  failed  to  demonstrate  that,  absent  a  stay,  it  will  be 
 irreparably  harmed.  Moreover,  to  the  extent  that  a  stay  would  maintain  an  ineffective  system  of  per-  call 
 compensation  that  deprives  PSPs  of  the  compensation  that  they  are  lawfully  due,  a  stay  would  jeopardize, 
 rather  than  promote,  the  widespread  deployment  of  payphone  services  and,  thus,  undermine  the  public 
 interest  identified  by  Congress.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  Sprint’s  request  for  administrative 
 stay  pending  judicial  review  is  denied. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Jeffrey  Carlisle 
 Senior  Deputy  Chief, 
 Common  Carrier  Bureau 


 6  Id.,  ¶  15. 
 7  Id.,  ¶  20. 
2