******************************************************** 
                      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-04-MD-004
mplainant,                       )
                                )
                                 )
v.                               )
                                )
CenterPoint Energy Houston 
Electric, LLC,

                            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, 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 March 11, 2004.2  In short, the Complaint alleges 
that CenterPoint violated section 224 of the Communications Act3 
when, in calculating an annual pole attachment fee, it relied on 
internal (i.e., not publicly-reported) depreciation data and 
based the average number of attaching entities on ``outdated and 
inaccurate'' numbers.4  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.5

     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-004 
(filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion'').
2  Complaint,  File  No.   EB-04-MD-004  (filed  Mar.  4,   2004) 
(``Complaint'').
3 47 U.S.C. § 224.
4 Complaint at i-ii; 6, ¶ 14; 7, ¶ 17; 9-20, ¶¶ 23-42; 20-24,  ¶¶ 
25-48.
5 Motion at 1-2, ¶ 6.