*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 33997*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  3882 
 Before  the  FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  )  ) 
 BALTIMORE  GAS  AND  ELECTRIC  COMPANY  )  ) 
 Complainant,  )  ) 
 v.  )  ) 
 CABLE  TELECOMMUNICATIONS  )  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  031  ASSOCIATION  OF  MARYLAND,  DELAWARE  ) 
 &  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA;  ADELPHIA  )  PRESTIGE  CABLEVISION  LLC;  MILLENNIUM  ) 
 DIGITAL  MEDIA;  and  COMCAST  CABLE  )  COMMUNICATIONS,  INC.  ) 
 )  Respondents. 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  December  4,  2003  Released:  December  5,  2003 


 By  the  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 1.  On  November  25,  2003,  the  complainant,  Baltimore  Gas  and  Electric  Company  (“  BGE”),  filed  a  Consent  Motion  to  Dismiss  1  with  prejudice  the  pole 
 attachment  Complaint  that  BGE  filed  on  May  14,  2002  against  the  respondents,  Cable  Telecommunications  Association  of  Maryland,  Delaware  &  the  District  of  Columbia, 
 Adelphia  Prestige  Cablevision  LLC,  Millennium  Digital  Media,  and  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.  2  The  Motion  to  Dismiss  states  that  the  parties  have  reached  a 
 settlement  agreement  that  “encompasse[  s]  all  of  the  issues  raised  in  the  Complaint,  and  has  rendered  moot  the  issues  in  the  Complaint  proceeding.”  3  BGE  also  states  that  it  has 
 been  authorized  to  represent  the  consent  of  all  parties  to  the  case  to  its  Motion  to  Dismiss.  4 


 1  Consent  Motion  to  Dismiss,  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  031  (filed  Nov.  25,  2003)  (“  Motion  to  Dismiss”). 
 2  Complaint,  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  031  (filed  May  14,  2002)  (“  Complaint”). 
 3  Motion  to  Dismiss  at  1. 


 4  Motion  to  Dismiss  at  2. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  3882 
 2 
 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),  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  Consent  Motion  to  Dismiss  is  GRANTED,  and  that 
 the  Complaint  is  DISMISSED  with  prejudice. 
 4.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  above-  captioned  proceeding  is  TERMINATED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Alexander  P.  Starr  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division 
 Enforcement  Bureau 
2