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

   )

   Lake County, Minnesota, d/b/a Lake )

   Connections )

   )

   Complainant, )

   )

   v. ) File No.: EB-13-MD-005

   )

   Citizens Telecommunications Company )

   of Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a Frontier, )

   a subsidiary of Frontier Communications Corp. )

   )

   Respondent. )

                               ORDER OF DISMISSAL

   Adopted: June 11, 2014 Released: June 11, 2014

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

    1. On November 18, 2013, Lake County, Minnesota, d/b/a Lake Connections
       (Lake County) filed a pole attachment complaint against Citizens
       Telecommunications Company of Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a Frontier, a
       subsidiary of Frontier Communications Corporation (Frontier) ^ ^
       pursuant to Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       (Act).^

    2. On June 9, 2014, Lake County filed a motion seeking dismissal of this
       action on the ground that the parties have reached a settlement
       resolving the issues raised in the Complaint.^ Lake County further
       stated that Counsel for Frontier had authorized counsel for Lake
       County to state that Frontier does not oppose the Motion.

    3. We are satisfied that granting the Motion will serve the public
       interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by
       eliminating the need for further expenditure of time and resources by
       the parties and the Commission.

    4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224
       of the Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority
       delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1424 of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1424, that
       the Motion is GRANTED.

    5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the
       Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated
       in Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1424 of the Commission's rules,
       47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1424, that the Complaint is
       DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Christopher L. Killion

   Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   ^ Complaint for Violations of Section 224 of the Communications Act and 47
   C.F.R. S 1.1401 et seq., File No. EB-13-MD-005 (filed Nov. 18, 2013)
   (Complaint). On December 11, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion
   requesting a modification of Frontier's name in the caption of the case
   and a suspension of the pleading cycle in this complaint proceeding to
   permit the parties to pursue mediation of their dispute. Joint Motion,
   File No. EB-13-MD-005 (filed Dec. 11, 2013) (Joint Motion). The Joint
   Motion was granted on December 12, 2013.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 224.

   ^ Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-13-MD-005 (filed June 6, 2014) (Motion).

   Federal Communications Commission DA 14-800

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 14-800