********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************



   Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.  20554


In the Matter of                                 )
                                                 )
THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY,             )
                                                 )
Complainant,                                     )
                                                 )
                                                 v.  )   
                                                 )
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH            )
COMPANY,                                         )
                                                     )
Defendant.                                       )
                                                 )
                                                 )   File No. E-89-130
                                                 )
THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY,             )
                                                 )
Complainant,                                     )
                                                 )
                                                 v.  )    
                                                 )
SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,            )
                                                 )
Defendant.

                                   ORDER

              Adopted: May 18, 1998;  Released:  May 18, 1998

By the Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier
Bureau:

 1.                                              On January 27, 1989, The Western Union Telegraph Company, now known as New Valley
Corporation ("New Valley," "Western Union," or complainant), filed the above-captioned formal complaint
against Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and South Central Bell Telephone Company
(collectively "BellSouth" or defendants).   Complainant alleged that defendants' rates for voice grade
channel termination in effect from January l, 1987 through December 31, 1988 were unjust and
unreasonable to the extent that they reflected costs related to voice grade performance and facility interface
equipment.   Complainant further alleged that defendants' rates for metallic channel terminations for the
same period also were unjust and unreasonable, in violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  201(b), to the extent that they reflected costs associated with circuit
equipment, station equipment, and large PBXs.   Defendants denied liability to Western Union for any
overcharges.

 2.                                              The above-captioned complaint, and a number of similar complaints directed against other
defendants, were filed as contingent complaints pending resolution of a court- remanded proceeding
involving the same basic issues underlying the complaints.   On December 15, 1989, the complaints were
deferred until further order at the request of all of the parties.   On March 11, 1998, the parties to each
complaint were directed to file a joint statement of stipulated facts and disputed facts, and the key legal
issues by April 30, 1998, unless they advised that they were actively engaged in good faith settlement
negotiations and anticipated resolving their complaint proceeding in the near future.  On April 30, 1998,
counsel for New Valley advised that the parties to the above-referenced complaint had reached a
settlement of their dispute.   
 
 3.                                      On May 14, 1998, New Valley filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  
In support of its motion, New Valley states that all claims in the actions against defendants have been
settled, with BellSouth admitting no liability.   New Valley further states that the parties have agreed that
this settlement shall not be construed as an admission by either party regarding the merits of the
allegations set forth in the complaint.

 4.                                      We are satisfied that dismissal of the complaint will serve the public interest by
eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties
and of this Commission.

 5.                                      Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 208, and the authority delegated
under Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that New Valley's
motion to dismiss this complaint with prejudice IS GRANTED.

 6.                                      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned complaint is hereby DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE and that the proceeding IS TERMINATED.


                                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                         
                                         Kurt A. Schroeder
                                         Chief, Formal Complaints                 
                                            and Investigations Branch             
                                         Enforcement Division
                                         Common Carrier Bureau