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
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

Texas and Kansas City Cable      )
Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time       )
Warner Cable,                    )
                            Co-  )    File No. EB-05-MD-008
mplainant,                       )
v.                               )
CenterPoint Energy Houston 
Electric, LLC,



Adopted:  January 6, 2006               Released:  January 9, 

By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement 

     1.   On December 21, 2005, the complainant, Texas and Kansas 
City Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Time Warner (``Time Warner 
Cable''), and the respondent, CenterPoint Energy Houston 
Electric, LLC (``CenterPoint''), filed a motion to withdraw with 
prejudice1 the Complaint that Time Warner Cable filed against 
CenterPoint on May 23, 2005.2  In short, the Complaint alleges 
that the pole attachment rates that CenterPoint imposed, as well 
as CenterPoint's practices regarding charges for back rentals for  
allegedly ``unreported attachments,'' are unjust and unreasonable 
in violation of section 224 of the Communications Act.3  The 
Motion states that the parties ``have reached a mutually-
acceptable resolution of their disputes,'' and that, as part of 
that settlement, they agreed to dismiss the Complaint with 

     2.   We are satisfied that dismissing the Complaint 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.

     3.   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), and 224, and the 
authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-
1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is 
DISMISSED with prejudice. 


                         Alexander P. Starr
                         Chief, Market Disputes Resolution 

1 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-05-MD-008 
(filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion'').
2  Complaint,  File  No.   EB-05-MD-008  (filed  May  23,   2005) 
3 Complaint at 1-3; 20-32,  38-53; 47 U.S.C.  224.
4 Motion at 1-2,  6.