Report No. CC-566          COMMON CARRIER ACTION             March 16, 1994

           STAFF'S DENIAL OF CHICAGO SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S
                    MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UPHELD


     The Commission has denied Chicago SMSA Limited Partnership's
(CLSP's) application for review of a Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau)
ruling regarding a complaint filed by Continental Mobile Telephone
Company, Inc., Consolidated Distilled Products, Inc., and Leavitt
Communications, Inc. (the complainants).  The decision upheld the
Bureau's original ruling.

     The complainants alleged in their complaint that CSLP had
violated the Communications Act and FCC policies prohibiting
restrictions on the resale of cellular services.  Complainants are
resellers of cellular communications services in the Chicago area
and purchased such services for resale from CSLP.  The complainants
claimed that CSLP refused to permit complainants to take service at
the same discounted or wholesale rates that CSLP offered to its own
cellular customers.  In rejecting CSLP's motion to dismiss the
complaint on jurisdictional grounds, the Bureau ruled that the
complainants had stated a cause of action by alleging that CSLP had
violated the Commission's resale policies by offering discounted
rates to certain customers that were lower than the rates for the
same service provided to complainants for resale.

     In its application for review, CSLP reiterated its claim that
the Commission has no authority to entertain the complaint because
it involves a dispute about rates for local exchange service -- in
this case cellular service -- a matter CSLP claimed is solely
within the purview of state regulation.  CSLP argued that the
Bureau's conclusion that the Commission has authority to inquire
into the rates and practices of cellular carriers for purposes of
addressing alleged violations of the Commission's resale policies
is inconsistent with the Communications Act, and court and
Commission rulings.  CSLP also contended that to the extent the
Commission upheld the Bureau's ruling, it should designate the
complaint for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

     The Commission found no reason to disturb the Bureau's ruling. 
The Commission stated that under its rules, all that is needed to
make out a prima facie case in a complaint proceeding is a filing
containing "facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute a
violation of the Communications Act or Commission rule or order." 

                                  (over)

                                    -2-

The Commission said that the complainants' contentions that CSLP's
cellular offerings were not in compliance with Commission orders
and decisions prohibiting unreasonable restrictions on cellular
resale was sufficient to state a cause of action under the act and,
therefore, CSLP's claim that the Commission lacked the requisite
jurisdiction had no merit.  The Commission further stated that its
decision to impose its cellular resale policy on each of the two
cellular licensees operating in each market was well within its
Title III jurisdiction over spectrum allocation and licensing
matters.  

     Finally, the Commission denied CSLP's alternative request that
the complaint be designated for evidentiary hearing before an ALJ. 
The Commission ruled that CSLP had failed to identify any material,
disputed question of fact that would warrant the trial-type hearing
that it seeks. 

     Action by the Commission March 7, 1994, by Memorandum Opinion
and Order (FCC 94-50).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, and
Barrett.

                                   -FCC-

     News Media contact:  Audrey Spivack at (202) 632-5050
     Common Carrier Bureau contact:  Thomas Wyatt at (202) 632-4887