Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

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

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

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



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

Indiana Telcom Corporation, Inc.      )
                                     )
                                       )
Complainant,
                                     )
                             v.       )  File No. EB-02-MD-023
                                      )
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.    )
f/k/a
South Central Bell Telephone          )
Company,
                                     )
                                         )
Defendant.                            )
                                     )
                                     )

                              ORDER 

   
Adopted:  September 2, 2004             Released:  September 3, 
2004

By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division:

    1.    On April 26, 2002, Indiana Telcom Corporation, Inc. 
      filed with this Commission a formal complaint against 
      BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. f/k/a South Central 
      Bell Telephone Company, asserting that the Defendant 
      violated sections 201(b) and 203(c) of the Communications 
      Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Part 69 of the 
      Commission's rules by improperly assessing end user common 
      line (``EUCL'') charges on the Complainant's payphones.1 

    2.    On January 14, 2004, Complainant filed a motion 
      requesting that we dismiss the formal complaint in this 
      proceeding with prejudice, as the parties have settled 
      their dispute.2  We grant Complainant's motion to dismiss 
      the formal complaint, with prejudice.  We find that 
      dismissal at this stage is appropriate, and will serve the 
      public interest by promoting the private resolution of 
      disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time 
      and resources of the parties and the Commission.

    3.    ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 
      4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 
      47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, sections 1.720-
      1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.720-1.736, 
      and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of 
      the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111 and 0.311, that 
      the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 
      in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED.  

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Radhika V. Karmarkar
                         Deputy Chief, 
                         Market Disputes Resolution Division
                         Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

147 U.S.C.  201(b) and 203(c); Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. (1996); 47 C.F.R.  69.1 et seq.
2Indiana Telcom Corporation v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 
f/k/a South Central Bell Telephone Company, Notice of Settlement 
and Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint With Prejudice, FCC, File 
No. EB-02-MD-023 (filed January 14, 2004).  Because the 
Commission order assessing liability in this case was on appeal 
to the D.C. Circuit at the time this motion was filed, we 
deferred ruling on the motion until the appeal had been decided 
and mandate issued.  Communications Vending Corp. of Ariz., Inc. 
et al. v. FCC, 365 F3d 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2004).