********************************************************    
                         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.  )   File No. E-89-75
                                                      )
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND 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" or complainant), filed the above-captioned formal complaint against Southern
New England Telephone Company ("SNET" or defendant).    Complainant alleged that defendant's 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 defendant's 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.  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 April 7, 1989, defendant filed its answer to the complaint and asked that the complaint
be dismissed, or in the alternative, that consideration thereof be deferred.  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.   
 
     2.                                       On May 14, 1998, counsel for New Valley filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice.  In support of its motion,  New Valley states that the parties have agreed to a settlement that
disposes of all issues and controversies in the complaint with respect to services provided by SNET to
Western Union. 

     3.                                       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.

     4.                                       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.

     5.                                       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