********************************************************    
                                         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.                       )    
                                             )
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,                  )    File No. E-89-129 
INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED,     )
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,             )    
THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, and              )              
     WISCONSIN BELL, INC.,                             )
                                             )
Defendants.                                       )
                                             

                              ORDER

  Adopted:  September 24, 1998;   Released:  September 24, 1998 

By the Deputy 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 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc.  (collectively Ameritech
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 the stipulated facts, disputed facts, and 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 complaint had reached a settlement of their dispute. 
 
     3.   On September 23, 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 action 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 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 this proceeding IS TERMINATED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              
                              Diane Griffin Harmon
                              Deputy Chief, Formal Complaints         
                                                  and Investigations Branch     
                                                            Enforcement Division
                              Common Carrier Bureau