For FCC Rcd Only
//$ Order, Center for Media Education, et al., DA 95-754//$


                                Before the 
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   DA 95-754
                         Washington, D.C.  20554 

In the Matter of)
     )
TELEPHONE COMPANY -   )          CC Docket No. 87-266
CABLE TELEVISION)
Cross Ownership Rules,           )
Sections 63.53 - 63.58)


                                   ORDER

Adopted:  April 6, 1995            Released:  April  6, 1995

By the Chiefs, Policy and Rules Division, Cable Services Bureau, and
Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau:

     1.    On April 4, 1995, the Center for Media Education, Consumer Federation of
America, Media Access Project, and People for the American Way (collectively, "CME, et
al.") filed a request for extension of time to submit reply comments to the Fourth Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above-captioned proceeding.  Comments were due
March 21, 1995.  Reply Comments are due April 11, 1995.  CME, et al. requests that the
deadline for filing reply comments be extended three weeks, so that reply comments would be
due May 2, 1995.

     2.    CME et al. states that additional time is necessary because of the complexity of
the issues raised in the Fourth Further Notice.  CME, et al. notes that the Commission
previously granted a motion for extension of time filed by Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. and
National Broadcasting Company, Inc., extending the original deadlines for filing comments
and reply comments in response to the Fourth Further Notice from March 6, 1995 and March
27, 1995, to March 21, 1995 and April 11, 1995, respectively.  CME, et al. states that over
sixty parties filed comments, many of which make extensive legal and policy arguments
meriting careful consideration.  They assert that the current reply period is too short to permit
adequate time to fully review these arguments.  In particular, CME, et al. states that the current reply deadline imposes a particular hardship on them because of their
very limited resources and because of the organizations' simultaneous involvement in other
important policy and legislative issues, including Commission proceedings.

     3.    We do not routinely grant extensions of time.  We are concerned that the
requested extension could unduly delay the expeditious resolution of the issues presented by
the Fourth Further Notice.  In recognition of the complexity of the issues involved with this
proceeding, however, we have already extended the time periods for filing comments and
reply comments.  The existing schedule provided sixty-one days in which to file comments
and an additional twenty-one days for reply comments.  We believe that these periods should
be sufficient for preparing and filing comments and reply comments.  CME, et al. has failed
to provide support or documentation sufficient to show that additional time for filing reply
comments is necessary in order to provide a reasonable opportunity to meaningfully
participate in this proceeding.  We therefore deny the request made by CME, et al.

     3.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Motion For Extension Of Time filed
by the CME, et al. IS DENIED.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



Gary Laden      James D. Schlichting
Chief, Policy and Rules Division Chief, Policy and Program Planning 
Cable Services Bureau Division
     Common Carrier Bureau