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

   APCC Services, Inc., Davel Communications, )

   Inc., Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a/ Pacific Telemanagement )

   Services, and Intera Communications Corp., )

   )

   Complainants, )

   )

   v. ) File No. EB-05-MD-019

   )

   Covista Communications Inc., Covista, Inc., and )

   Capsule Communications, Inc., )

   )

   Defendants. )

                               ORDER OF DISMISSAL

   Adopted: April 7, 2006 Released: April 7, 2006

   By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement
   Bureau:

    1. On August 29, 2005, APCC Services, Inc., Davel Communications, Inc.,
       Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera
       Communications Corp. (collectively, "Complainants") filed a formal
       complaint pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934,
       as amended ("Act"), against Covista Communications, Inc., Covista,
       Inc., and Capsule Communications, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants").
       Complainants alleged that Defendants had violated sections 201(b) and
       276(b) of the Act by failing to make certain payphone compensation
       payments.

    2. On March 27, 2006, Complainants and Defendants filed a joint motion
       requesting that we dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. The Joint
       Motion states that the parties have settled their dispute in its
       entirety.

    3. We are satisfied that dismissing the Complaint with prejudice will
       serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of
       disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the
       expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this
       Commission.

    4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b),
       208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
       SS 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 276, sections 1.720-1.736 of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.720-1.736, and the authority
       delegated in section 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47
       C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the
       Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS
       TERMINATED.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Rosemary H. McEnery

   Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S 208.

   Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-019 (filed Aug. 29, 2005)
   ("Complaint").

   47 U.S.C. SS 201(b), 276(b).

   Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-019 (filed
   Mar. 27, 2006) ("Joint Motion").

   See Joint Motion at 2.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA-06-817

   2

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA-06-817