have come forth with no showing that they acted in any way to control the unauthorized charging of AT & T’s [service] to their system”); MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Ameri-Tel, Inc., 852 F.Supp. 659, 668 (N.D.Ill.1994) (examining Lhe steps taken to "prevent unauthorized usage” of services). 21 . In MGC, the FCC found that sending a single notification letter rejecting service was not enough to affirmatively reject service. Th ubject to this chapter shall file with the Commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other carriers, or with common carriers not subject to the provisions of this chapter, in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this chapter to which it may be a party.” 47 U.S.C. § 211. 24 . Plaintiffs' d 479, 489-90 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In the companion case to this matter,
holding that fcc possesses exclusive authority to set aside an arbitration clause contained in a filed tariff holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where promise was supported by bargained for consideration holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that judicial enforcement of a promise or contract to provide service on terms not contained in filed tariff is precluded by the filedrate doctrine holding failure to establish terms of an oral loan agreement precluded the existence of a breach of contract claim