WPC'K 2BBVR@Z3|PN n9B8*XAB7  PT6QP"5@^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888CE8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo8oE]A]AN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82t8[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv**8SJSS8]8****88JJ:S8A8x**x*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC[228`L*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4 (Copy 2)HL4CO2.WRSSC\  P6Q,,,j&(\P2; t~m@3|PN Times New RomanUnivers (Bold)Times New Roman (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic)Times New Roman (Bold Italic)"5@^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888CE8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo8oE]A]AN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82t8[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv**8SJSS8]8****88JJ:S8A8x**x*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC[228`L*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS2 Zmv pK HP LaserJet 4 (Copy 2)HL4CO2.WRS 4C\  P6Q,,,j&(\P S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#XP\  P6QiXP##&J\  P6Qb"&P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2 k kX  vh a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2ht   BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2  F a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2-]]a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2_ma5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2h\a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2!3e 6!Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====IK=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7t=eeeegoo.Ijg2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc..=\Q\\=f=....==QQ@\=G=...=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\"5@^,,ETTe,,,T,,,,TTTTTTTTTT,,EbT]`LJb`%JXGx`eOgVVT```[Q,,,TBTGLGLG1LL G tLLLL/B1LJtJJ@BBBTTTTTT7TTQbGbGbGbGbGq]GLGLGLGLG% % % % `LeLeLeLeL`L`L`L`L[JbG`TeLeL[J`LOLbTbTbT]G]T]TTTTTTTbLbTbbTbT`T`TTTTTTT%QTXGG G7`L`LeTxV/V7VBVBNBTT,EJJTTT66T4BBT4,,BBT11TTQ,B,4t,IIPP!TO$n_BjnJJfffXsICR`O`FVB`IJIOP:R:\MfF`Ij\f\T_SP,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ETTe,,,T,,,,TTTTTTTTTT,,EbT]`LJb`%JXGx`eOgVVT```[Q,,,TBTGLGLG1LL G tLLLL/B1LJtJJ@BBBT,,,TBTTTV1,,,,,,BBBTTQB1x,,[,,TTTTBTTB6J,BTT44TOTT46JEbbbbbb]LLLL%%%%``eeeeee````[OQGGGGGGqGGGGG LLLLLLLLLLLLJL2c9@c,@/@2@#6"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====IK=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQQzQzQzQ\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\QQfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeioo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_..=\\\\=f=....==\\@\=G=...=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd<!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,2222222722222222F@9 @< @@ @UC"5@^*8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888CE8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82t8[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv**8S]SS8S8****88]]:S8A8o**]*ASSSS.S8.Sq8SC[228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5@^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CC!CCPRCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdYYo8oRdddzNzRdNdNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^(2<I=.Xb"&I7  PT6Q&Pd!>,,X>pZQ, y>N=.X~Z&N7  pTQ&, DUC2XXU7  pTQX O)0(Xh07  PT6QhP B"(!X,(7  PT6Q,Pj 'n9C8*X6WC7  xTQX j (DPC2X68XP7  xTQXX )n9D8*XOD7  xTyQj O)0(X6h07  xTQhX y_' X   ` y_'#Tps7##&a\  P6G;b"&P# #&J\  P6Qb"&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#kDA 99539 yxdddyڃ`Qb Before the Federal Communications Commission  y_'&2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  y_4'#&J\  P6Qb"&P#у  e4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: j nZ'ԍ Radiofone's First Supplement to the Complaint, filed on January 15, 1991.s BMI stated that it decided not to go through with the expansion  xof the coverage of its Zackary cell site because, unless it installed expensive equipment,  x_compliance with the condition would have required it to provide "home" roaming to Cellular's  x<subscribers located within the Baton Rouge MSA as well as those located in the covered areas  x<of the adjacent rural service areas. Moreover, BMI complained that the effect of the condition  xyto its authorization was to eliminate the possibility of competition between cellular carriers on  e 4the basis of geographic coverage within the MSA.=? j nZl 'ԍ BMI's Brief, p. 11.=   e4 "29. Alleged Interruptions of Service in 1993 On or about June 18, 1993, Radiofone  x_received complaints from some of its subscribers that they were unable to use the automatic  e 4 xroaming service of BMI's affiliate in Louisiana RSA 6, near Plaquemine, La.v@ @j nZp'ԍ Second Supplement to Complaint, filed by Radiofone on June 19, 1995,  4.v BMI states that  xthis problem resulted from the installation of the wrong roamer software when its affiliate's  xIPlaquemine, La. cell site was activated on June 9, 1993, and that, after it learned of the mistake  xpfrom Radiofone, it promptly took corrective actions, which restored automatic roamer service to  e 4Radiofone's subscribers on June 22, 1993.cA j nZt'ԍ BMI's Answer To Second Supplement To Complaint,  15. c  "30. On or about May 22, 1993, Radiofone learned that its subscribers were not able to  xcobtain automatic roaming service in the territory served by BMI's affiliate's Bogalusa cell site in  eg4 xLouisiana RSA 7.RBg( j nZ@'ԍ Second Supplement To Complaint,  5.R The Bogalusa cell site had just been activated on May 20, 1993 and was  x<still in the process of being tested when BMI received Radiofone's complaint on May 22. BMI  xVmaintains that the necessary corrections to its roaming software package were made within the  xphour by BMI after it learned of the problem, which allowed automatic roaming from the cell site  e4for Radiofone's subscribers.\C j nZD!'ԍ Answer To Second Supplement To Complaint,  15.\  "31. Radiofone also alleges that, "on or about November 6, 1993, BMI disabled roaming  xcapabilities for Radiofone subscribers roaming in Louisiana RSA 7 without notice and without  eO4 x}explanation,"QDOH j nZH&'ԍ Second Supplement To Complaint,  6.Q and that "on or about November 11, 1993, roaming capabilities were discontinued  x"for Radiofone's Baton Rouge subscribers roaming in BMI territory near Plaquemine, Louisiana  x(Louisiana RSA 6)." BMI explains that during this period its contractor, Motorola, was installing"  D,H)H)PPA"  xan enhancement, known as Dynamic Roaming, to its switches to permit automatic roaming for  xadditional BMI markets to be networked though its New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lafayette,  xNLa. MTSOs. To implement this enhancement, BMI maintains, Motorola was required to  x"rebuild" the roaming data base in each of its MTSOs. In doing so, BMI maintains, Motorola  x[made errors which resulted in a number of disruptions in roaming service, including those  xNcomplained of by Radiofone. BMI claims that it corrected the roaming data base for the  xLouisiana 7 RSA service on November 10, 1993, which is the date of Radiofone's letter to it  e 4 xbringing the problem to its attention.]E j nZ'ԍ Answer To Second Supplement To Complaint,  15. ] BMI states that it corrected the problem resulting in the  xPlaquemine, La. service disruption on November 11, 1993, within 34 hours after receiving  e4Radiofone's complaint.4FXj nZ 'ԍ Id. 4  e '_ 2. Analysis  e\ 4 \  "32. Radiofone contends that BMI has engaged in a "pattern of anticompetitive conduct,"  xin violation of Section 314 of the Communications Act, consisting of the alleged discriminatory  xand predatory pricing of its per diem roaming "setup" charges and the various other events  e 4 xVdescribed supra. in paragraphs 2131.KG j nZi'ԍ Radiofone's Initial Brief, p. 30.K However, even assuming that the conduct complained  x_of relates to interstate communications, we do not believe that such conduct was violative of  x}Section 314 of the Act, or that the difficulties that Radiofone has alleged it has experienced with  xBMI's roamer services show that BMI had engaged in a "pattern of anticompetitive conduct" which was otherwise proscribed by the Communications Act.  "`33. Radiofone argues that Section 314 of the Act grants the Commission omnibus  xauthority to remedy anticompetitive conduct by its radio licensees. In this regard, it points to  xpstatements in several Commission orders in which the Commission cited Section 314, along with  xother sections of the Act, as reflective of its general authority to consider the impact of its  er4 xIregulations on competition for communications services.Hrxj nZ' x ԍ The Need to Promote Competition and Efficient Use of Spectrum for Radio Common Carrier Services, 2 FCC  nZc'Rcd 2910, 2913 (1987), aff'd, 4 FCC Rcd 2369, 2371 (1989). We agree that the Commission in its  ximplementation of the provisions of the Communications Act may and, indeed, must consider the  xprocompetitive policies underlying the antitrust laws within the broad "public interest" and "just  xand reasonable" standards set forth in Sections 201(b), 202(a), 214, 224, 308(a) and other specific  e4 xsections of the Act.Ij nZg#' xZ ԍ E.g., NBC v. U.S., 319 U.S 190 (1943); AT&T's Private Commission Plan, 7 FCC Rcd 7135 (1992); United  nZ/$' x Telephone Company of Ohio, 26 FCC 2d 417 (1970); Application for Transfer of Control, Xerox Corporation,  nZ$' x Transferee, 74 FCC 2d 471,  29 (1979); Telesphere International v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 8 FCC  nZ%' x Rcd 4945 (Com. Car. Bur. 1993); Radiophone Communicators of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Communications  nZ&'Authority, 3 FCC Rcd 2458 (Com. Car. Bur. 1988). However, the Commission has not, as Radiofone argues, been effectively  xygranted omnibus antitrust jurisdiction over the communications industry by Section 314 of the Act. " I,H)H)PPc"Ԍ e4 "[ԙ 34. The language of Section 314 appears to relate only to anticompetitive combinations  x_of international radio and cable companies and the anticompetitive operation of international  xtelecommunication facilities. That section, insofar as pertinent to Radiofone's argument,  e4provides:` ` x`  e ` ` [N]o person engaged directly, or indirectly . . . in the business of  e %transmitting and/or receiving for hire energy, communications, or  e signals by radio in accordance with the terms of the license issued  e under this Act, shall . . . directly or indirectly operate any cable or  e4 e wire telegraph or telephone line or system between any place in  e4 e any state . . . and any place in any foreign country . . . if . . . the  e purpose is and/or the effect thereof may be to substantially lessen  e\ 4 e competition or to restrain commerce between any state . . .and any  e9 4 e place in any foreign country, or unlawfully create monopoly in any line of commerce. (emphasis added)x`  "035. Section 314 was included in the original 1934 Act in response to a Congressional  xNconcern that the then existing competition in the international telecommunications market  xbetween HF radio companies, providing radiogram services, and submarine cable companies,  xproviding cablegram services, might be eliminated in the future as a result of consolidations or  eD4 xmergers among those competitors.JDj nZ' x* ԍ FCC v. RCA Communications Inc., 346 U.S. 86, 9798 (1953); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., Inc. v FCC, 97 F. 2d 641, 645 (D.C. Cir. 1938). As stated in the House and Senate Reports, "Section 314  e!4 xpreserves competition in international communications."4K! j nZ' x ԍ S. Rep. No 781, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (April 17, 1934, reprinted in Com. Reg. (P&F)  10:1005; accord  nZ'H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1918, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 2526 (June 4, 1934), reprinted in Com. Reg. (P&F)  10:1019.4 When the issue of the application of  xSection 314 was squarely presented in prior cases, the Commission has also held that the section  e4 x&applies only to international communications.Lxj nZ'ԍ  Applications of General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc., 17 F.C.C. 2d 654 (Rev. Bd. 1969). Thus in Applications For Transfer of Control of  e4 xRCA Corporation,KMj nZq'ԍ 60 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 563 (1986).K the Commission interpreted Section 314 as prohibiting, "the acquisition of  xinternational facilities when the transfer would substantially lessen the competition between radio facilities on the one hand and cable facilities on the other hand."  e,4 "36.    Radiofone, in arguing that Section 314 confers broad antitrust jurisdiction on the  e 4 xCommission,ON j nZR#'ԍ Radiofone's Initial Brief, pp. 3031.O fails to recognize that the language of this provision is limited to international  e4 xccommunications. Radiofone further relies on Sports Network, Inc. v. AT&T,>O( j nZ%'ԍ 3 FCC 2d 618 (1966).> which it argues  xIrequires that "anticompetitive conduct on the part of a radio licensee in 'any line of commerce,'" O,H)H)PP"  e4 xdomestic or international, is subject to Section 314."HPj nZy'ԍ Radiofone's Reply Brief, p. 9.H In Sports Network the Commission  xcdismissed allegations in a formal complaint that AT&T had violated Sections 311 and 314 of the  xAct in its provision of program transmission service to occasional users. The Commission stated  xthat Section 314 prohibits "common ownership or control of cable and radio facilities if the  x"purpose or effect thereof is to substantially lessen competition between any place in the United  x States and any place in any foreign country or unlawfully create monopoly in any line of  e.4 xcommerce."_Q.Xj nZ7 'ԍ Sports Network, Inc. v. AT&T, supra.,  18 ._ We do not agree that Sports Network supports, much less requires, the interpretation of Section 314 advocated by Radiofone.  e4 "d37. Similarly, Radiofone cites International Telecharge v. AT&TNRj nZ^ 'ԍ 8 FCC Rcd 7304 (Com. Car. Bur. 1993)N and Garryowen  e4 xCorp.,?Sx nZ'ԍ 68 FCC 2d 1390 (1978)? both cases in which complaints alleging violations of Section 314 were dismissed. In  x<short, Radiofone has not cited any instances in which anticompetitive acts in domestic markets  xhave been found in violation of Section 314. We therefore find that the cases cited by Radiofone are unpersuasive.  "38. Contrary to Radiofone's position, the Commission previously has ruled that Section  e 4 x314 is not applicable to domestic mobile communications. In American Telephone and Telegraph  e4Co., 22 F.C.C. 1220, 1223 (1957), the Commission stated:  e ` ` AT&T's Tariff FCC No. 235 is limited in application to the leasing  e sand maintaining of equipment and facilities used by private mobile  e %communications systems within the continental United States. It  e Yis clear that it does not involve the acquisition, ownership, control,  e or operation of any facility wire or radio for the transmission or  e communication between the United States and any foreign country.  e ^Thus, we conclude that section 314 is not applicable to this  er4proceeding. x`  "B39. In any event, we do not believe that the record in this proceeding supports  xRadiofone's contention that BMI has engaged in unlawful anticompetitive conduct. In this  xregard, Radiofone alleges that BMI engaged in a "pattern of anticompetitive conduct" by: (1)  e4 xthe discriminatory application of "setup" charges;JTj nZ|#'ԍ See paragraphs 58, supra.J (2) the charging of "predatory" roaming "set e4 xlup" charges to its subscribers;OUj nZ%'ԍ See paragraphs 5 and 20, supra.O (3) BMI's Baton Rouge, La. affiliate's refusal to accept the  e}4 x<Commission's authorization to modify its Zackary cell site;HV}( j nZV('ԍ See paragraph 28, supra.H and (4) the six alleged instances of"} V,H)H)PPM"  e4disruption of roaming services by BMI's affiliates to Radiofone's subscribers.W@j nZy' x} ԍ See paragraphs 21 27 and 29 31, supra. Radiofone also alleges, without providing any details, that  x7 automatic roaming service to its subscribers on BMI's affiliate's system in the Louisiana 7 RSA was interrupted  x sometime in midOctober, 1993, but that service was restored a short time later. ( Second Supplement To Complaint,  x  6.) BMI states that Radiofone did not supply sufficient information for it to locate records of any complaint made  xx by Radiofone concerning this service outage. (Answer To Second Supplement To Complaint,  15.) By its failure  x to provide sufficient information to permit the defendant to respond to this allegation, Radiofone has failed to comply  x with Sections 1.720(a), 1.721(a)(5) and 1.721(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules. We therefore make no findings on the basis of this allegation.  "40. The substance of Radiofone's claims of unlawful discrimination with respect to BMI's  xapplication of per diem "setup" charges has been resolved by the settlement of the parties under  et4 xthe aegis of the LPSC.LXtj nZ 'ԍ See paragraphs 1719, supra.L Further, we do not believe that such alleged discrimination in itself or  xwith the other evidence offered by Radiofone establishes a pattern of anticompetitive conduct  xon the part of BMI. Radiofone argues that BMI engaged in "predatory" pricing by not passing  e 4 xVon the $2.00 "setup" fee to its subscribersTY ` j nZ'ԍ Radiofone's Complaint,  18 and 19.T or, in the alternative, by not assessing this fee at all  e4 xtimes to affiliates.KZ j nZ'ԍ Radiofone's Initial Brief, p. 37.K However, Radiofone has not even attempted to show that BMI's overall  x+charges to its subscribers were below cost. It has also not established other components of  x"predatory pricing": that BMI's belowcost pricing was intended to drive competitors out of the  xmarket; that it intended thereafter to raise prices to a monopoly level; and that it had a reasonable  e\ 4prospect to succeed with this anticompetitive strategy.q[\ j nZ'ԍ Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson, 509 U.S. 209, 222225 (1993).q  "41. Similarly, Radiofone has not presented any direct evidence that BMI has intentionally  xdisrupted automatic roaming service to Radiofone's subscribers. In each instance complained of,  x/BMI has a credible explanation for the interruption of service and in each instance service was  xrestored fairly promptly after BMI was made aware of it. There is also no basis in the record  xto conclude that BMI's refusal to accept the Commission's authorization to modify its Zackary site was part of a "pattern of anticompetitive conduct."  "42. We therefore conclude that Radiofone's complaint does not set forth a basis, either  xin fact or in law, to support a conclusion that BMI has violated Section 314 of the Communications Act.  e'8  IV. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES   eO4 "\ 43. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Radiofone's complaint, to the extent that  x<it contends that BMI discriminated against Radiofone in the application of per diem setup fees,  xhas been resolved by a settlement agreement under the aegis of the Louisiana Public Service  x'Commission, which had jurisdiction over the matter, and should not be relitigated by this"[,H)H)PP"  xCommission. Further, we conclude that Section 314 is inapposite, and that in any event  xRadiofone has not shown that BMI has engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct violative of the Act.   "44. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 202, 208, and 314 of  xthe Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 202, 208, and 314, that the formal complaint of Radiofone, Inc. against Bell South Mobility, Inc. IS DENIED. 46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this proceeding is terminated.  e 4` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION#XP\  P6QiXP# ` `  Myron C. Peck  e 4 2` `  Deputy Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division #XP\  P6QiXP#  e4 ` `  Wireless Telecommunications Bureau