********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                        )
                                   )
Petition for Relief of                       )
                                   )
TOP CATT TV & VIDEO PRODUCTIONS,   )
               Petitioner,         )
                                   )
vs.                                )    CSR 4507 -L
                                   )
LAWTON CABLEVISION, INC.,          )
               Respondent,         )
                                   )
For Leased Access Channels         )


                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  April 29, 1997             Released:  May 1, 1997

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   Introduction

     1.   Top Catt TV & Video Productions (herein "Top Catt") of Lawton, Oklahoma, filed
a petition for special relief pursuant to Section 76.975 of the rules of the Federal Communications
Commission alleging that Lawton Cablevision, Inc. (herein "Lawton Cable") is in violation of the
Commission's regulations applicable to commercial leased access services by refusing to provide
leased access rates for hourly individual programs.  Lawton Cable filed a response asking that the
request for relief be denied and the petition be dismissed.

II.   Background

     2.   In 1984, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 by adding among other
things a commercial leased access requirement, pursuant to which cable operators with 36 or more
activated channels must set aside part of their channel capacity for use by video programmers that
are not affiliated with them.  The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992 (the "1992 Cable Act") revisited the leased access requirement and directed the Commission
to establish rules for determining maximum reasonable rates for, and reasonable terms and
conditions for the use of, commercial leased access channels.  Pursuant to that Congressional
directive, the Commission established regulations applicable to leased access channels in its
proceedings in Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992; Rate Regulation, MM Docket 92-266, (the Rate Order), 8 FCC Rcd 5631,
5956-5961 (1993). The Commission revisited these regulations in Implementation of Sections of
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Leased Commercial
Access, Second Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and
Order, CS Docket 96-90, 62 Fed. Reg. 11364, March 12, 1997 ("Second Order").

     3.   The leased access regulations initially required, among other things, that cable
operators provide a schedule of rates "[u]pon request" to prospective leased access programmers.
In the recently adopted Second Order, the Commission set a 15 day response time from the date of
a written request. A 30 day response time was established for systems who qualify for "small
system" rate relief. Additionally, the regulations provide for the determination of maximum monthly
leased access rates by means of an average implicit fee formula, which is described in the
regulations.  The Commission also adopted procedures for resolution of disputes, providing for the
filing of a petition for relief within sixty days of an alleged violation of a leased access statutory or
regulatory provision, and for the filing of a response.

III.  The Pleadings

       4.      Top Catt is a small, independent production company serving the Oklahoma and
Texas areas.  It alleges that Lawton Cable has failed to respond to its repeated requests for rates for
hourly service and has provided it only full time monthly rates.  Top Catt further asserts that Lawton
Cable has imposed technical and program content requirements that are excessive, causing undue
financial hardship and mental anguish.  It requests an order requiring Lawton Cable to show cause
why it should not cease and desist continuing to violate the leased access provisions and initiating
forfeiture proceedings against Lawton Cable.

     5.   Lawton Cable provides cable services to approximately 24,470 subscribers in Lawton,
Oklahoma.  According to Lawton Cable, Top Catt first formally requested leased access from
Lawton Cable in a letter dated February 16, 1995.  Previous to such request, it had not received any
other request for leased access service and therefore had not developed leased access policies or rate
schedules.  Lawton Cable asserts that its general manager orally conveyed quotations of monthly
rates to Top Catt in mid-April and a full schedule of monthly and part time rates by letter dated May
9, 1995.

     6.   In response to the allegation regarding the imposition of excessive technical and
content requirements, Lawton Cable states that it received from Top Catt a video tape for a pilot
program that contained music content.  Lawton Cable states that, in response to inquiries, Top Catt
admitted not having any copyrights to that programming but stated that it would obtain a license. 
Lawton Cable states further that to its knowledge Top Catt has not obtained the required license. 
In this connection, Lawton Cable further asserts that the tape's picture quality was extremely poor
and worse than any programming on any of its other channels.

IV.   Discussion

     7.   The principal issue raised by the petition is whether the respondent cable operator,
Lawton Cable, violated the Commission's leased access regulations because of its alleged failure to
provide Top Catt with rates for part time leased access service.  The record shows that Top Catt
expressed interest in leased access services on Lawton Cable's cable system and requested "a Rate
Card outlining prices for Leased Access time for one hour per day, for seven days a week
programming."  That request was followed by a second request pointing out that Lawton Cable had
not delivered the rate card, even though the request had been the subject of earlier discussions. 
Lawton Cable ultimately provided Top Catt with a complete schedule of monthly full time and part
time leased access rates after the petition for relief had been filed.

     8.   This record does not support a finding that Lawton Cable refused to respond to Top
Catt's requests for leased access rates in violation of Section 76.970(e) of the rules. Section 76.970(e)
required, when the petition was filed, that a cable operator provide a schedule of leased access rates
to prospective leased access programmers "[u]pon request." At the time that Top Catt filed its
petition no specific response time was specified.  Lawton Cable provided Top Catt with a complete
schedule of full time and part time leased access rates after Top Catt's petition was filed.  As Lawton
Cable points out, Commission policy with respect to part time leased access service was not
discussed in detail in the Rate Order.  However, further clarification was provided by the Cable
Services Bureau In the Matter of Tootlevision vs. Community Cable/Prime Cable of Nevada, which
was released February 16, 1995, the date Top Catt requested part time rates from Lawton Cable. 
Since Lawton Cable provided Top Catt with a schedule of part time rates that meets the requirements
following the filing of its petition, and in view of the unsettled nature of the law at the time, we find
that Lawton Cable did not violate Section 76.970(e).  We note, however, that our new rules provide
for a response period of 15 days from the date of a written request or 30 days from a date of a written
request for systems who qualify for "small system" rate relief. 

     9.   Further allegations that Lawton Cable imposed excessive technical and content
requirements are unsupported and unsubstantiated and accordingly will be dismissed.  In the Second
Report, the Commission affirmed the right of cable operators to impose reasonable insurance
requirements on leased access programmers.  Accordingly, Lawton Cable may require either that
Top Catt provide proof of license for copyrighted programming presented for carriage or require
reasonable insurance protection against carriage of un-copyrighted programming.  Lawton Cable
may also require that leased access programming presented by Top Catt meet the same production
standards that are required of public, educational and governmental access channels.  Top Catt's
petition for relief will be dismissed along with the request for cease and desist and forfeiture orders.

V.   Ordering Clauses

     10.       For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for relief of Top Catt
TV & Video Productions in File Number CSR 4507-L IS DISMISSED.

     11.       This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                         Meredith J. Jones
                         Chief, Cable Services Bureau