Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
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
In the Matter of )
)
CABLE TELECOMMUNICATION )
ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND, DELAWARE )
& THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. )
)
Complainants, )
) File No. PA-00-001
v. )
)
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC )
COMPANY and )
BELL ATLANTIC-MARYLAND, INC. )
)
Respondents.
ORDER
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.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Alexander P. Starr
Chief, Market Disputes Resolution
Division
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
Bureau.
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.