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

CenterPoint Energy Houston       )
Electric, LLC,                   )
                            Co-  )
mplainant,                       )    File No. EB-04-MD-009
v.                               )
Texas and Kansas City Cable      )
Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time 
Warner Cable,



Adopted:  January 6, 2006               Released:  January 9, 

By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement 

     1.   On December 21, 2005, the complainant, CenterPoint 
Energy Houston Electric, LLC (``CenterPoint''), and the 
respondent, Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Time 
Warner (``Time Warner Cable''), filed a motion to withdraw with 
prejudice1 the Complaint that CenterPoint filed against Time 
Warner Cable on June 29, 2004.2  In short, the Complaint alleges 
that Time Warner Cable should pay pole attachment rent at the 
higher ``telecom rate,''3 rather than at the lower ``cable 
rate,''4 because both Time Warner Cable and its licensee, Time 
Warner Telecom of Texas, L.P., are telecommunications carriers 
using the fiber optic cable on Time Warner Cable's pole 
attachments to provide telecommunications services.5  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 prejudice.6

     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-04-MD-009 
(filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion'').
2  Complaint,  File  No.  EB-04-MD-009  (filed  June  29,   2004) 
3 47 U.S.C.  224(e)(1)-(3).
4 47 U.S.C.  224(d)(1), (2).
5 Complaint at ii; 25-30,  59-68
6 Motion at 1-2,  6.