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


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
                   Washington, D.C.  20554

In the Matter of                        )
& THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.      )              
     Complainants,                      )    
                                   )    File No. PA-00-001
          v.                       )
COMPANY and                        )

     Adopted: December 4, 2003          Released:  December 

5, 2003

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

     1.   On February 2, 2000, the Cable Telecommunications 
Association of Maryland, Delaware & the District of 
Columbia, Prestige Cable TV of Maryland, Millennium Digital 
Media, Jones Intercable, Inc., Comcast Cablevision of 
Maryland, LP, Comcast Cablevision of Howard County, Inc., 
Comcast Cablevision of Harford County, and Prime 
Communications-Potomac, LLC t/a Cable TV Montgomery 
(``Complainants'') filed a pole attachment complaint in the 
captioned matter against Baltimore Gas & Electric Company 
(``BGE'') and Bell Atlantic-Maryland (``BAM'') 
(``collectively, Respondents'').1   

     2.   On March 13, 2001, the Cable Services Bureau 
issued an order addressing the Complaint that granted it in 
part and denied it in part.2  On April 12, 2001, BGE filed a 
Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureau Order.3

     3.   On November 25, 2003, BGE filed a Consent Motion 
to Dismiss with prejudice its Petition for Reconsideration 
of the Bureau Order.4  The Motion to Dismiss states that the 
Complainants and BGE have reached a settlement agreement 
that ``encompasse[s] all of the issues on appeal before the 
Commission.''5  BGE also states that BAM has consented to 
the settlement.6

     4.   We are satisfied that dismissing BGE's Petition 
for Reconsideration will serve the public interest by 
promoting the private resolution of disputes and by 
eliminating the need for expenditure of further time and 
resources of the parties and this Commission.

     5.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 
1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, and the 
authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111 and 0.311, that the 
Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureau Order IS 
DISMISSED with prejudice.


                         Alexander P. Starr
                         Chief, Market Disputes Resolution 
                         Enforcement Bureau


1 Complaint, File No. PA 00-001 (filed Feb. 2, 2000).

2 Cable Telecommunications Association of Maryland, Delaware 
& the District of Columbia, et al. v. Baltimore Gas & 
Electric Company and Bell Atlantic Maryland, Order, 16 FCC 
Rcd 5447 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 2001) (``Bureau Order'').  The 
Cable Services Bureau is now referred to as the Media 

3 Petition for Reconsideration, File No. PA 00-001 (filed 
Apr. 12, 2001).
4 Consent Motion to Dismiss, File No. PA 00-001 (filed Nov. 
25, 2003). 
5  Motion to Dismiss at 1.
6  Motion to Dismiss at 2.