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

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

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



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


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
Pamela A. Lilley,                )
Complainant,                     )    File No. EB-00-TCF-009 
                                )
          v.                     )
                                )
Paging Network Of Ohio, Inc.,    )
Defendant.                       )

                              ORDER

   Adopted:  November 16, 2000          Released:  November   17, 
2000

By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division,  Enforcement 
Bureau:

     1.  On August 30,  2000, Pamela A.  Lilley (Lilley) filed  a 
motion for  dismissal without  prejudice of  the  above-captioned 
formal complaint against Paging Network of Ohio, Inc.  (PageNet).  
Lilley alleged in the complaint that PageNet had changed the rate 
of her paging  service without prior  notice or consent.   Lilley 
now states  that  she no  longer  wishes to  pursue  this  action 
because she does not have the resources or willingness to  pursue 
the complaint in Washington, D.C., ``especially when [PageNet] is 
in bankruptcy.''  In response, PageNet argues that the  dismissal 
should be with prejudice because Lilley did not substantiate  the 
request for dismissal without prejudice.

     2.  We are satisfied that granting, in part, Lilley's motion 
to dismiss  its  complaint  will serve  the  public  interest  by 
eliminating the need for  further litigation and the  expenditure 
of  further  time  and  resources  by  the  parties  and  by  the 
Commission.   Lilley  has  not,  however,  presented   sufficient 
grounds to show that dismissal without prejudice would serve  the 
public  interest.   We  therefore  dismiss  the  complaint   with 
prejudice.

     3.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) 
and (4(j)  of the  Communications  Act of  1934, as  amended,  47 
U.S.C. §§ 151,  154(i), 154(j),  and the  authority delegated  in 
sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  §§ 
0.111, 0.311,  that the  motion to  dismiss the  above  captioned 
complaint without prejudice, filed by Pamela A. Lilley on  August 
30, 2000,  IS  GRANTED to  the  extent indicated  herein  and  IS 
OTHERWISE DENIED.

     4.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned complaint 
IS  DISMISSED  WITH  PREJUDICE   and  that  this  proceeding   IS 
TERMINATED.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                    
                         Catherine W. Seidel
                         Chief,   Telecommunications    Consumers 
Division                                     Enforcement Bureau