********************************************************    
                                         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.                       )    
                                             )
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY,                  )    File No. E-89-79
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, )    File No. E-89-80
and BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION,                    )    File No. E-89-131
                                             )
Defendants.                                       )
                                             )
                                             )    

                              ORDER

                                    Adopted:  September 3, 1998;  Released:  September 4, 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 complaints
against New York Telephone Company, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Bell Atlantic
CorporationTelephone Company (collectively 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 were also 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 complaints, 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.  Subsequently, counsel for the parties timely advised
that the parties to the above-referenced complaints had reached a settlement of their disputes. 
 
     3.   On August 31, 1998, New Valley filed a motion to dismiss the complaints with prejudice.  In
support of its motion, New Valley states that all claims in the actions against defendants have been settled, with
defendants admitting no liability.   New Valley further states that the parties have agreed that their settlement
shall not be construed as an admission by either party regarding the merits of the allegations set forth in the
complaints.

     4.   We are satisfied that dismissal of the complaints 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 these complaints with prejudice IS GRANTED.

     6.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned complaints are hereby DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE and that these proceedings ARE TERMINATED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



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