September 25, 2002

Dear Greeting, 

We operate a regional paging service here in Colorado, and like many of you, we’ve had difficulty getting an equitable interconnection agreement from our Local Exchange Carrier, Qwest. After many attempts to get them to quit sending bogus bills and to also return unearned and illegal charges, we were left with few alternatives. So, we filed a formal complaint at the FCC, asking the agency to do its job to enforce the dictates of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, in essence, stated that LECs would pay to terminate calls onto paging systems.

Qwest’s strange response was that it was only charging us for delivery of transit traffic that did not originate on its network and for which it did not collect all monies due from the originating carrier. For example, Qwest said that it did not charge the originating carrier for the cost of facilities used to terminate traffic onto our network. Therefore, using Qwest’s strange logic, it was entitled to collect those facilities charges from us, since the originating carrier didn’t pay it.

Unfortunately, the FCC, contrary to law and logic, bought Qwest’s argument. Frankly, we were a bit surprised that the FCC would so pervert the intent and clear language of Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act, not to mention the obvious reading of its own rules. To us, the issue is quite simple. When a carrier terminates traffic onto another carrier’s system, the carrier that places the traffic onto the system pays. That’s what the law says, but for reasons which will never be totally clear to us, the FCC stated otherwise in its Order. The ruling states that we, the paging carrier, have to pay for the privilege of receiving traffic from our LEC!

We have filed a Notice of Appeal of the FCC’s order and want to fight this one in court. We know that if we win (and we think we can) our efforts will go a long way toward leveling the playing field among common carriers and will provide a foundation upon which all paging, interconnected two-way, and others can assert their rights against the too-often dominating Local Exchange Carriers. The ramifications of the FCC decision against us are already being employed by LECs to deny equitable agreements for other companies across the United States.

Although we feel very strongly about our position and are willing to take the time and resources to bring the matter before the United States Court of Appeals, we must be honest. The cost of bringing the appeal is probably higher than the value of winning to us alone. Of course, that’s what the LECs count on, is that the smaller paging companies won’t fight them because of cost. We don’t want that strategy to work for the LECs and we need your help to level the playing field. We think that asking for contributions is appropriate because if we win, you win.

We ask that you contribute whatever amount you will to the FAIR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FUND, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Case No. 02-1255; c/o Michael L. Higgs, Jr., Schwaninger & Associates, P.C., 1331 H Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005. If you have questions about the law suit, you can call Mr. Higgs at (202) 347-8580. All money collected will be used to finance the litigation.


This effort is extremely important in assuring that companies, like yours and mine, are treated fairly by Local Exchange Carriers, now and in the future. Together, we can bring this matter to the Courts and obtain the justice denied by the FCC, but promised by Congress. This decision is extremely bad for the long-term health of all wireless operators, and it needs to be addressed now. With your help and other companies like yours, we can overturn this decision and improve our position for years to come.

I hope you join with me in this effort and I wish to thank you in advance for taking the time to consider helping in this important effort.

Very truly yours,



David Balsick, President
Mountain Communications, Inc.
dbalsick@mtncomm.com