*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 54216.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA-  06-  34 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 CenterPoint  Energy  Houston  Electric,  LLC, 
 Complainant, 
 v. 
 Texas  and  Kansas  City  Cable  Partners,  L.  P.,  d/  b/  a  Time  Warner  Cable, 


 Respondent. 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 File  No.  EB-  04-  MD-  009 


 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  prejudice  1  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. 
 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. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA-  06-  34 
 2 
 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 
2