******************************************************** 
                      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


Texas and Kansas City Cable      )
Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time       )
Warner Cable,                    )
                                )
                            Co-  )    File No. EB-05-MDIC-0011
mplainant,                       )
                                )
                                 )
v.                               )
                                )
Southwestern Bell Telephone 
Company,

                            De-
fendant.


                              ORDER

Adopted:  June 2, 2005                  Released:  June 3, 2005


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

     1.   On May 20, 2005, the complainant, 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 it 
filed against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``Southwestern 
Bell'') on December 3, 2004.2  In short, the Complaint alleges 
that Southwestern Bell violated section 224 of the Communications 
Act3 and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's rules4 by refusing 
to grant Time Warner Cable access to Southwestern Bell's conduit 
along the Queen Isabella Causeway in Texas.5  The Motion states 
that the parties ``have successfully negotiated a settlement to 
their dispute,''6 and that, as part of that settlement, Time 
Warner Cable has agreed to withdraw its Complaint in this 
proceeding.7

     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. 

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Lisa B. Griffin
                         Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution 
               Division
                         
_________________________

1 Letter from Yaron Dori, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, File No. 
EB-05-MDIC-0011 (filed May 20, 2005) (``Motion'').
2  Complaint,  File  No.   EB-04-MD-013  (filed  Dec.  3,   2004) 
(``Complaint'').
3 47 U.S.C. § 224.
4 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(a).
5 Complaint at 1-4, ¶¶ 2-6.
6 Motion at 1.
7 Motion at 1.  On February 17, 2005, the Market Disputes 
Resolution Division converted the Complaint from an active to an 
inactive complaint.  See Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, 
L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Cable v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 05-440, File No. EB-04-MD-013 
(Mkt. Disp. Res. Div. Feb. 17, 2005) (``Memorandum Opinion and 
Order'').  The Memorandum Opinion and Order granted the parties' 
request that the Commission suspend its consideration of the 
Complaint while the parties attempted to settle their dispute.  
Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2.  The Memorandum Opinion and 
Order found that good cause existed to grant the parties' 
request, and, in order to allow the parties to devote their full 
attention to settlement efforts, converted the Complaint to an 
inactive complaint.  Id.  In so doing, the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order assigned this matter a new docket number:  EB-05-MDIC-0011.  
Today's Order dismisses with prejudice the inactive complaint 
proceeding.