*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 33998*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  3883 
 Before  the  FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  )  ) 
 CABLE  TELECOMMUNICATION  )  ASSOCIATION  OF  MARYLAND,  DELAWARE  ) 
 &  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA,  et  al.  )  ) 
 Complainants,  )  )  File  No.  PA-  00-  001 
 v.  )  ) 
 BALTIMORE  GAS  AND  ELECTRIC  )  COMPANY  and  ) 
 BELL  ATLANTIC-  MARYLAND,  INC.  )  ) 
 Respondents. 
 ORDER 
 Adopted:  December  4,  2003  Released:  December  5,  2003 


 By  the  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 1.  On  February  2,  2000,  the  Cable  Telecommunications  Association  of  Maryland,  Delaware  &  the  District  of  Columbia,  Prestige  Cable  TV  of  Maryland, 
 Millennium  Digital  Media,  Jones  Intercable,  Inc.,  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Maryland,  LP,  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Howard  County,  Inc.,  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Harford  County, 
 and  Prime  Communications-  Potomac,  LLC  t/  a  Cable  TV  Montgomery  (“  Complainants”)  filed  a  pole  attachment  complaint  in  the  captioned  matter  against  Baltimore  Gas  & 
 Electric  Company  (“  BGE”)  and  Bell  Atlantic-  Maryland  (“  BAM”)  (“  collectively,  Respondents”).  1 


 2.  On  March  13,  2001,  the  Cable  Services  Bureau  issued  an  order  addressing  the  Complaint  that  granted  it  in  part  and  denied  it  in  part.  2  On  April  12,  2001,  BGE  filed 
 a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  of  the  Bureau  Order.  3 
 1  Complaint,  File  No.  PA  00-  001  (filed  Feb.  2,  2000). 


 2  Cable  Telecommunications  Association  of  Maryland,  Delaware  &  the  District  of  Columbia,  et  al.  v. 
 Baltimore  Gas  &  Electric  Company  and  Bell  Atlantic  Maryland,  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  5447  (Cab.  Serv.  Bur.  2001)  (“  Bureau  Order”).  The  Cable  Services  Bureau  is  now  referred  to  as  the  Media  Bureau. 


 3  Petition  for  Reconsideration,  File  No.  PA  00-  001  (filed  Apr.  12,  2001). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  3883 
 3.  On  November  25,  2003,  BGE  filed  a  Consent  Motion  to  Dismiss  with  prejudice  its  Petition  for  Reconsideration  of  the  Bureau  Order.  4  The  Motion  to  Dismiss 
 states  that  the  Complainants  and  BGE  have  reached  a  settlement  agreement  that  “encompasse[  s]  all  of  the  issues  on  appeal  before  the  Commission.”  5  BGE  also  states 
 that  BAM  has  consented  to  the  settlement.  6 
 4.  We  are  satisfied  that  dismissing  BGE’s  Petition  for  Reconsideration  will  serve  the  public  interest  by  promoting  the  private  resolution  of  disputes  and  by 
 eliminating  the  need  for  expenditure  of  further  time  and  resources  of  the  parties  and  this  Commission. 


 5.  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  Petition  for  Reconsideration  of  the  Bureau  Order  IS 
 DISMISSED  with  prejudice. 


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


 4  Consent  Motion  to  Dismiss,  File  No.  PA  00-  001  (filed  Nov.  25,  2003). 
 5  Motion  to  Dismiss  at  1. 


 6  Motion  to  Dismiss  at  2. 
2