WPC9 2MB%RK<3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"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 Tech InitT(PȗInitialize Technical Style.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+> 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2)w a1Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,4"     a2Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,*    a3Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,'     a4Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&     2Y  ca5Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&   . a6Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&  . a7Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+, &  . a8Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+, &  . 2   aDoc 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+, *    a3Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,0     2q)ffqfa4Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, . a5Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,   a6Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, !" a7Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,#$` ` ` 2yq *zep 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+>)* Heading 1T(PȗCentered Heading6+).K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>+,* Ã  2 sM 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@` `  ` ` ` a3Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,J34` ` @  ` `  2$$!!"I#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# a7Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,n;<` `  hh#(@- ( 2+D$K%Ka'K)a8Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,w=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""<.<<<<(#,%2h>*f9 xr G;hXR Z# ngsa4Technical+29 yO- X   ) X-w #Xj\  P6G;9XP# Federal Communications Commission`)(#5DA 971011 ă  yxdddy )vK Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO}"Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X -l#Xj\  P6G;9XP#у)  X -In the Matter of  hh,V)  X-Petition for Relief of hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  X-LORILEI COMMUNICATIONS INC.,V)  X- d/b/a THE FIRM, hh,V)  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-statutory or regulatory provision and for the filing of a response. >  {O-ԍSee Second Order, Appendix D, Revised Rules, Section 76.975 and 47 C.F.R.  76.975 (1996).  X- III. THE PLEADINGS  X-  4.` ` The petition describes The Firm as an advertising agency and video production   /company that produces thirty minute programs for automotive dealers, recreational vehicle  X-  =dealers, and real estate companies to air on commercial leased access channels.7 X  yO&-ԍPetition, p. 1.7 The petition" ,N(N(ZZ"   ydescribes efforts by The Firm to obtain a leased access channel on TeleCable's cable system at   Columbus, Georgia. The Firm states that it received correspondence from TeleCable containing   Lfulltime and parttime leased access rate information and including conditions of service. The   Firm objects to a requirement that parttime rates be purchased for a minimum of one hour per   yday for 30 consecutive days. The Firm contends this minimum purchase requirement is unduly   restrictive in violation of Section 76.970(d) of the Commission's rules. The Firm asserts that this  Xv-requirement is unusual and puts a burden on its programming plans.7 v yO-ԍPetition, p. 3.7  XH-  A5.` ` The Firm also asserts that TeleCable's classification of its proposed programming   in the "home shopping" rate category is a violation of Section 76.970(f) of the Commission's  X -rules It argues that its programming properly belongs in the "all other" rate category.  X yO# - x.ԍThe Commission's rule in effect when the petition was filed established three categories of leased access  {O -programming for rate purposes. See 47 C.F.R.  76.970(f) (1995).  X -  Q6.` ` The Firm states that TeleCable was informed of its position on these matter by   \means of several letters, and that the last of these letters dated October 13, 1995 asked for a   response so that these matters could be negotiated, but no response has been received from   .TeleCable. The Firm asks the Commission to consider issuing a notice of apparent liability for   forfeiture in the amount of $100,000 as penalty for TeleCable's violation of the rules, to require   TeleCable to offer parttime rates in increments as little as onehalf hour, which it asserts has   become the industry standard for leased access services, and order TeleCable to reclassify its programming in the "all other" rate category.  X-  7.` ` Telecable asserts generally that it is not required to provide leased access channels   for The Firm's programming, on the grounds that the statutory leased access provisions do not   apply to advertising. Telecable asserts that The Firm is an advertising agency that produces   commercials for various products, and that the material which The Firm seeks to have carried   /seeks to sell a product or service. TeleCable argues that The Firm's programming "is either  X-  advertising or shopping and should not be classified in the all other category.":  yO -ԍOpposition, p. 12.: Telecable further   asserts that, if The Firm's programming qualifies for leased access channels, then its minimum   Npurchase requirement of one hour per day for thirty consecutive days is reasonable and   ipermissible under the leased access statutory and regulatory provisions. TeleCable also requests   Lthat the various forms of relief requested by The Firm be denied. Finally, Telecable claims that forfeitures should be imposed on The Firm for abusing the Commission's leased access rules.  X - III. DISCUSSION  X- A. Eligibility for Commercial Leased Access Channels " B ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-  8.` ` The principal issue presented here is whether TeleCable has an obligation under   Section 612 of the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's implementing regulations to make a   leased access channel available for the presentation of programming that includes commercial advertising. We conclude that it does.  X-  9.` ` Section 612(a) states that the purpose of the commercial leased access requirement   Kis to promote competition "in the delivery of diverse sources of video programming and to assure   that the widest possible diversity of information sources are made available to the public from  XH-  cable systems in a manner consistent with the growth and development of cable systems.">H yO -ԍ47 U.S.C.  532(a).>   Section 612(b) implements this goal by mandating that cable operators "designate channel  X -  capacity for commercial use by persons unaffiliated with the operator."> X yO# -ԍ47 U.S.C.  532(b).> Cable operators are  X -  required to designate stated percentages of activated channels for commercial leased access use.1  {O-ԍId.1  X -  L The Commission's dispute resolution rules provide that any person aggrieved by the failure or   refusal of a cable operator to make commercial channel capacity available in accordance with the   provisions of Section 612 or the Commission's implementing regulations may file a petition for  X -relief with the Commission.I z yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.975(b) (1995)..I  Xy-  10.` ` The Firm states that it is "an independent video production company" which  Xb-  produces thirty minute programs "to air on commercial leased access channels."7b  yO-ԍPetition, p. 1.7 We read this   =statement as a representation that The Firm is a video production company seeking to present   xvideo program productions on a commercial leased access channel to be obtained from TeleCable.   TeleCable has presented nothing which disputes that representation, beyond its assertion that The   =Firm's programming contains commercial advertising materials and that The Firm also operates   an advertising agency. We find that The Firm qualifies as an unaffiliated "diverse source of   video programming" for which TeleCable is required by Section 612 to "designate channel  X-  jcapacity for commercial use."F yO !-ԍ47 U.S.C.  532(a) and (b).F We reject TeleCable's argument that The Firm is not entitled to   leased access channels because The Firm's programming includes advertising material. Nothing   in Section 612 may be construed as disqualifying The Firm from use of a leased access channel,   simply because it is engaged in business as an advertising agency, in addition to being engaged   Lin video production providing a "diverse source of video programming" within the meaning of   Section 612. Indeed nothing in Section 612 or the Commission's leased access rules would prohibit a leased access user seeking carriage soley of advertising time. " * ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-  11.` ` We disagree with TeleCable that Sofer vs. United Statest yOy-ԍ No. 2:94cv1182, slip op. (E.D.VA., June 7, 1995), 1995 WL 576833 (E.D.Va.).t supports the proposition  X-  that The Firm's programming does not qualify for leased access channels. Sofer involved a claim  X-  that a cable operator refused to sell commercial advertising time on a cable system and other  X-  [unspecified allegations of violations of Section 612 and related regulations. The court in Sofer   found that Section 612 and related Commission regulations have no application to commercial  X-  advertising. However, the case before us here does not involve the purchase of commercial  X|-  advertising as was the case in Sofer. Instead, this case involves a request by a video production   company for a leased access channel, designated for that use pursuant to Section 612, for the  XP-  presentation of program productions. Nothing in Sofer or in Section 612 suggests that the  X;-  /inclusion of commercial advertising content in video program productions?;X {OD -ԍSee  3 above.? disqualifies an   independent video program producer, such as The Firm, from use of leased access channels for   /the presentation of such program productions. Indeed, cable operators are precluded from   considering the content of leased access programming, except to the extent necessary to establish  X -  a reasonable price for such programming.K  {Oz-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  532(c)(2).K Accordingly, we will direct TeleCable to provide   such leased access channel capacity as may be requested by The Firm consistent with the requirements of Section 612.  X- B. Proper Leased Access Rate Category  XU-  12.` ` With respect to the rate category dispute, we note that the Commission initially  X>-  separated leased access programming into three distinct rate categories.Z>| yOk- xԍThe rate categories were "(1) Programming for which a perevent or per channel charge is made, (2)  xhProgramming more than fifty percent of the capacity of which is used to sell products directly to customers; and (3)  {O-All other programming." See 47 C.F.R.  76.970(f) (1995). See also Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5949,  516. Nothing presented in   >this record shows that The Firm's programming involves any selling of products directly to   customers, only that such programming contains some unspecified amount of advertising content.   -There also is no issue concerning perevent or per channel charges. Therefore, we conclude that   The Firm's programming should have been placed in the "all other programming" category, as  X-  initially defined in Section 76.970(f)(3). We note in this connection that in the Second Order,   the Commission abolished the previous distinction between rates charged to direct sales   .programmers and rates charged to "all others," on the grounds that it was more appropriate to   base maximum rates on the value of channel capacity determined under the leased access  Xq-  regulations than on the different economies among leased access programmers.Iq {O$-ԍSee Second Report,  49.I In addition to   <resting leased access rates on sounder economics principles, this simplification of rate categories   eliminated confusion that may have arisen under the earlier provisions when attempting to"C0 ,N(N(ZZ"  X-  determine proper leased access rates based on programming content. yOy-  ԍFor example, a reference was made to "infomercials" in the description of the direct sales rate category that  {OA-has now been eliminated. See Rate Order,  516. On the record before us,   we believe it inappropriate to sanction Telecable in view of the lack of clarity that existed under the earlier provisions concerning proper application of leased access rate categories.  X- C. ThirtyDay Minimum Purchase Requirement  Xv-  13.` ` TeleCable asserts that nothing in the Communications Act or the Commission's   rules prohibits the establishment of a thirtyday minimum purchase requirement for parttime   leased access channels. TeleCable argues that cable operators must be permitted to maintain   minimum purchase requirements, in order to minimize the number of time slots that would   otherwise become blank on a channel carrying parttime leased access programming. TeleCable   asserts that carriage of parttime programming will inevitably displace fulltime programming   yservices and lead to waste of valuable channel capacity that will harm cable operators, fulltime   programmers and subscribers alike. It suggests that, absent minimum purchase requirements,   cable operators will be forced to replace fulltime programming with disjointed, randomly spaced   blocks of parttime programming on channels with the remaining unused time slots probably   remaining dark. TeleCable asserts that cable operators will otherwise be unable to use slots not   taken by parttime programming. TeleCable asserts that a further reduction of available channel   capacity for new and innovative fulltime programmers will result from such inefficient devotion   [of valuable channel space to parttime programmers. TeleCable asserts that parttime minimum   <purchase requirements tend to add some measure of programming continuity and help reduce the   jresulting confusion and dissatisfaction among subscribers that will result from a disjointed mix   of parttime programming on a leased access channel. TeleCable also argues that a minimum   purchase requirement will guarantee cable operators a minimum amount of compensation for use of extremely valuable channel capacity.  X-  14.` ` TeleCable has provided no empirical evidence that supports the suggestion that   parttime leased access will displace fulltime service, or that enough time slots will remain   unused on channels carrying parttime leased access programs to cause confusion and  Xe-  xdissatisfaction among subscribers.e" yO8-  ԍ The Commission recently visited the question of minimum contract length and declined to establish a   minimum contract length. The Commission noted that the requirement that operators accommodate all leased access   requests as long as capacity exceeds demand should assure leased access programmers access until the statutory setaside of channels is met.  Furthermore, Telecable has not described how the thirtyday  XN-minimum requirement would be applied. "N yO$-  ԍ The Commission recently visited the question of minimum contract length and declined to establish a minimum  {O%-  contract length. See Second Report,  110. The Commission noted that the requirement that operators accommodate   Zall leased access requests as long as capacity exceeds demand should assure leased access programmers access until the statutory setaside of channels is met. "+',N(N(V'"Ԍ "NX,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ` `  X-  15.` ` In the Recon. Order the Commission found that the most common programming   Ltime increment is typically a onehalf hour increment, and that imposing a longer minimum time  X-  increment could effectively preclude many leased access programmers from obtaining access.HX {O-ԍSee Recon. Order,  47.H   Accordingly, Section 76.971(g) was added to the rules stating that cable operators are not  X-  required to accept leases for less that a onehalf hour interval.O {O* -ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.971 (1996).O We will expect Telecable to   make leased access time available to The Firm in increments of not less than onehalf hour, consistent with Section 76.971(g) of our revised leased access regulations.  X3- D. Other Forms of Relief hh,  X -  #16.` ` The Firm requests relief in the form of compensation for time expended and costs   zincurred in bringing this action before the Commission. Neither the Communications Act of   1934, as amended, nor the 1992 Cable Act provides for recovery of costs associated with the   filing of a petition for relief with the Commission for alleged violations of the statutory leased   yaccess provisions or of the Commission's regulations issued under those statutory provisions.  X-Accordingly, petitioner's request for compensation for such costs will be denied.| yO-  ԍThe request for imposition of sanctions against The Firm will be denied. The record does not support the assertion that The Firm abused the Commission's leased access provisions.  Xd- IV. ORDERING CLAUSES  X6-  17.` ` For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for relief of The  X-  =Firm (a) IS GRANTED in part insofar as indicated in Paragraphs 8 through 10 and Paragraph  X-14 and (b) IS DENIED insofar as it requests imposition of penalties and other forms relief.  X-  p18.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: