******************************************************** 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 WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION ) ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. E-97-43 ) ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, ) INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. ) MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, ) and OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, ) WISCONSIN BELL, INC. ) d/b/a AMERITECH OPERATING COMPANIES ) AMERITECH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: December 7, 1999; Released: December 7, 1999 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On August 8, 1997, MCI Telecommunications Corporation ("MCI") filed a formal complaint against the above-referenced defendants (collectively referred to as "Ameritech"). Therein, MCI alleged that the defendants' provision of in-region interLATA service, as part of its "Friendly Users" trial, violated, inter alia, section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 2. On December 6, 1999, MCI filed with the Commission a "Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of its Complaint." In its Motion, MCI represented that, after reviewing the record thus far established in the proceeding, it had determined that it no longer wished to pursue this action against Ameritech, and, therefore, believed that its resources, as well as those of other parties to the proceeding, including the Commission, might be better spent in other undertakings. 3. We believe that the dismissal of this 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 the Commission. 4. 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), and 208, and the authority delegated in Section 0.111 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111 that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Glenn Reynolds Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau