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
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,
Re-
spondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: January 6, 2006 Released: January 9,
2006
By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement
Bureau:
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.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Alexander P. Starr
Chief, Market Disputes Resolution
Division
_________________________
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)
(``Complaint'').
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.