WPCA 2MB%RK Z3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN 2A u ]   Tech InitT(PȗInitialize Technical Style.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+> 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,4"     a2Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,*    a3Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,'     2s  a4Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&     a5Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&   . a6Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&  . a7Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+, &  . 2  N F a8Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+, &  . Doc InitT(PȗInitialize Document Style.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, F *  ׃  a2Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, *    2q]ff4a3Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,0     a4Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, . a5Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,   a6Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, !" 2=qq=*ea7Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,#$` ` ` a8Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,%&` ` ` PleadingT(PȗHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper,ȗ&+Bȗ+>'(   ,#6X@@# X  y*dddyy*dddy HJ1 HJ2 HJ3 HJ4 HJ5 HJ6 HJ7 HJ8 HJ9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӲHeading 2T(PȗUnderlined Heading Flush Left.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>)* 2posRHeading 1T(PȗCentered Heading6+).K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>+,* Ã  Bullet List(PȗIndented Bullet List+*.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>-.` ` ` a1Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,8/0@   a2Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,A12@` `  ` ` ` 2}Xa3Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,J34` ` @  ` `  a4Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,S56` `  @  a5Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,\78` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,e9:` `  hh#@( hh# 2%x XJ!K#a7Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,n;<` `  hh#(@- ( a8Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,w=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp *y.X80,X\  P6G;P+7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP,7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xy.\80,T\4  pG;pDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/K&K](K*K,"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""Kp/f 2n""i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd\@{,W80,.B[W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,.rXh*f9 xr G;XXuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN1A*y.X80,X\  P6G;P+7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP,7nC:,|Xn4  pG;X-y.\80,T\4  pG;.W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP/H5!,i,5\  P6G;,P38wC;,%Xw PE37XP\4{,W80,.0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,.2Xh*f9 xr G;XXz oyeshighmediumlow yO- X   ' X-w #Xj\  P6G;9XP# Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 97863 ă  yxdddy'v3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  yO -T#Xj\  P6G;9XP#у  X-In the Matter of  hh@hpp)  X-Petition for Relief of hh@hpp) x` `  hh@hpp)  X-STEVE GRUBERG, hh@hpp)  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:of a written request for information by a potential programmer. A 30 day response time was  xestablished for systems who qualify for "small system" rate relief. Additionally, the regulations  x[provide for the determination of maximum monthly leased access rates by means of an average  X>- ximplicit fee formula, which is described in the regulations.j>X  {OG!-ԍSee Second Order, Appendix D, Revised Rules, Section 76.970.j The Commission also adopted  xjprocedures for resolution of disputes, providing for the filing of a petition for relief within sixty  X-days of an alleged violation of a leased access statutory or regulatory provision.  {O$-ԍSee Second Order, Appendix D, Revised Rules, Section 76.975 and 47 C.F.R.  76.975 (1996).  X- "| ,7)7)qq"  X-III. The Pleadings  X-x  X- ` x4.` ` The petition identifies Gruberg as a producer of commercial use programming on  xTime Warner's cable system serving New York City (Time Warner). The petition asserts that  xanother program producer, Media Ranch, Inc., pays Time Warner a programming rate of $200  xzper hour for a midnight to 1:00 a. m. slot on Tuesday and Saturday while Gruberg is charged  x$250 per onehalf hour for a midnight to 12:29 a. m. slot on Wednesday and $225 per half hour  xNfor a midnight to 1:29 a. m. slot on Monday. The petition further asserts that a producer,  xidentified as Temptation Publishing, is paying 12.5% less than Gruberg for a 4:30 a. m. to 5:59 a. m. time slot on another, unspecified day of the week.  X - ` _x5.` ` The petition states further that, in an effort to determine whether Gruberg is being  xovercharged, Gruberg and his attorney were permitted to examine Time Warner's public file and  x=that they were presented with certain documents which, according to Gruberg, did not include  X - x.a rate schedule or any justification of rates pursuant to Section 76.970.D  {O7-ԍSee Epstein affidavit.D Gruberg asserts that  xTime Warner failed to maintain such information in its public file as required by 47 C.F.R.   x=76.970. The petitioner asks the Commission to consider its letter and the annexed affidavits as  xa complaint for a) overcharging and b) failure to properly maintain commercial use rate  Xb-information.W bZ {Om-ԍSee Epstein letter, dated March 14, 1995.W  X4- ` x6.` ` Time Warner notes that Section 76.305(a) of the rules does not require cable  X- xoperators to maintain leased access information in their public inspection file.  {O- xԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.305(a), which lists the records to be maintained locally by a cable system operator for publice inspection. Time Warner  xasserts further that it in fact maintains leased access information, and that Gruberg and his  xattorney were provided with fifteen pages of leased access rate information when they visited  X-Time Warner's offices. F yO- xԍ Time Warner asserts that rate information was, in fact, submitted with the petition as attachments to the affidavit of Gruberg's attorney.  X- ` #x7.` ` Time Warner contends that Gruberg failed to provide any basis for the allegation  xof overcharging. Time Warner asserts that Commission regulations permit negotiation of rates  X|- xLlower than the maximum allowed rates,\| {O#- x,ԍ Time Warner cites Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition  {O$- xAct of 1992; Rate Regulation, MM Docket 92266, (the Rate Order), 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993), at  519, where the Commission indicated that rates lower than the maximum rates may be negotiated. that such negotiations may result in different rates for  xdifferent programmers, and that the existence of different rates for different programmers does  xnot constitute a violation of the leased access regulations. It argues further that the rate difference  X7- x[is less than $4.34 per half hour, which is de minimis and the result of market place negotiations"7 ,7)7)qq"  xcontemplated by the Congress and the Commission. Time Warner contends that its rates do not  xexceed the maximum permitted under Commission regulations. Finally, Time Warner states that  xjthe rate charged to Media Ranch, Inc. was set by stipulation in litigation in a federal court case  xunder 47 U.S.C.  532(d) and therefore "has no bearing on rates pursuant to a rate card or during  X-armslength negotiations."A {O-ԍSee Response, p. 5.A  X-  Xv- III. Discussion  XH- xA. Availability of Rate Information.  X - ` }x8.` ` First, we reject Gruberg's assertion that Time Warner was required to maintain rate  xAinformation for commercial use channels in its public file. Section 76.305(a) of the  x-Commission's regulations lists the records that are required to be maintained in a cable operators public inspection file as follows:  p ` The operator of every cable television system ... shall maintain for public  pinspection a file containing a copy of all records which are required to be  pkept by 76.207 (political file); 76.221 (sponsorship identification);  p76.79 (EEO records available for public inspection); 76.225(c)  pF(commercial records for children's programs); 76.601(c) (proof of  pperformance test data); 76.601(e) (signal leakage and repair records); and  X-76.701(h) (records for leased access)."ZN yO(- xKԍSection 76.701(h) requires that cable operators retain records sufficient to verify their compliance with the  xSection 76.701(b) requirement for placing leased access programming identified by the programmer as indecent on  {O- xa separate channels requiring subscribers' prior written consent for viewing. See 47 C.F.R.  76.701(b) & (h). These provisions have no application here.  `    xjSection 76.305(a) on its face does not require that leased access rate information be maintained  xin a cable operator's public file. Neither did Section 76.970 of the rules in effect when the petition was filed.  X- ` x9.` ` When the petition was filed, Section 76.970(e) of the rules provided that "[u]pon  xrequest, a schedule of commercial leased access rates shall be provided to prospective leased  Xe- xaccess programmers."eD {OZ"- xԍSee, 47 C.F.R.  76.970(e) (1995). As noted earlier, in the recently adopted Second Order, the Commission set a 15 day response time from the date of a written request. No specific time period was provided for at the time petitioner made his  xrequest for information. The petition shows that, when Time Warner's staff was asked for "rate  xinformation for Commercial Use Channels," Gruberg was presented with fifteen pages containing  X - xleased access rate information.]  {Oo'-ԍSee, Epstein affidavit and attachments thereto.] Subsequently, Time Warner submitted a formal rate card as part  xof the record in this proceeding. Moreover, the petition makes no showing that either Gruberg" 0 ,7)7)qqy"  xZor his attorney expressed to Time Warner's staff or any other company official any dissatisfaction  X- xwith the information given them, either when it was handed to themJ {Ob-ԍSee Epstein affidavit, p. 1.J or at any time before the  xpetition for relief was submitted to the Commission about a month later. We find that the rate  xyinformation provided by Time Warner was responsive to Gruberg's request for rate information  xfor Commercial Channel Use. On this record, we conclude that Gruberg failed to show that Time  X-Warner has violated the requirements of Section 76.970(e) in effect when the petition was filed.RZ {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.970(e) (1995).R  X_-x B. Allegations of Overcharging Are not Substantiated  X1- ` x10.` ` We also conclude that Gruberg failed to substantiate the allegation of overcharging  xby Time Warner. Rather than providing facts relevant to an allegation of overcharging, Gruberg  x[points to alleged differences between hourly rates charged him and hourly rates charged other  x?leased access users on Time Warner's system. Section 612 of the Act does not prohibit  X - xdifferences in charges for leased access channels."  yOr- xԍDiscrimination in leased access rates is addressed in Section 612 only in language which specifically allows  xxfor differences in charges as between programmers that are affiliated with a cable operator and programmers that  {O- xare not so affiliated. Discrimination in rates as between unaffiliated programmers is not addressed. See 47 U.S.C.  532. Section 612 and Commission leased access  xregulations require that cable operator's rates not exceed the maximum reasonable rate calculated  xin the manner prescribed by Commission rules. Gruberg does not allege that the rates quoted by  xTime Warner exceeded the maximum net implicit fee calculated pursuant to the Section 76.970(c)  Xy-requirements that were in effect when the petition was filed.Ry {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.970(c) (1995).R  XK- IV. Ordering Clauses  X- `  x11.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the petition of Steve Gruberg IS  X- DISMISSED. x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhMeredith J. Jones x` ` hhChief, Cable Service "[F s "[F  Bureau