Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
 
In the Matter of 
MCI Communications Services, Inc., d/b/a 
Verizon Business Services,
Complainant,
v.
Embarq Florida, Inc., United Telephone 
Company of Indiana, Inc., United Telephone 
Company of Eastern Kansas, United Telephone 
Company of Kansas, United Telephone 
Company of South Central Kansas, United 
Telephone Company of Southeast Kansas, 
Embarq Minnesota, Inc., Embarq Missouri, 
Inc., United Telephone Company of the West, 
United Telephone Company of New Jersey, 
Inc., Central Telephone Company – Nevada, 
Carolina Telephone and Telegraph LLC, 
Central Telephone Company – North Carolina, 
The United Telephone Company of 
Pennsylvania LLC, United Telephone 
Company of the Carolinas LLC, United 
Telephone Company of Ohio, United 
Telephone Company of the Northwest, United 
Telephone Southeast LLC, Central Telephone 
Company of Texas, United Telephone 
Company of Texas, Inc., and Central 
Telephone Company of Virginia, 
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-08-MD-004
ORDER OF DISMISAL
Adopted:  December 12, 2008 Released:  December 12, 2008
By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau:
1. On July 25, 2008, MCI Communications Services, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services 
(“Verizon”) filed a formal complaint1 against the above-named defendants (the “Embarq Companies”) 
pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”).  In the Complaint, 
Verizon alleges that the Embarq Companies violated sections 201and 203 of the Act and the 
  
1 Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) (“Complaint”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 
2
Commission’s “benchmark rules.”2
2. On December 11, 2008, Verizon moved to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.3 In its 
Motion, Verizon stated that it had settled its dispute with the Embarq Companies and that the Embarq 
Companies consented to the Motion.
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), and 208 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of 
the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, 
of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint 
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Alexander P. Starr
Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau
  
2 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26.
3 Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 
2008) (“Motion”).