WPC3 2MB%RK<3|a Times 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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#&a\  P6G;&P##&a\  P6G;&P#xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\ S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P6G;IP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#&a\  P6G;0&P##&a\  P6G;0&P#"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic2KKKHK"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&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""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNF\gggy\r3r_r>rFr S- X    S-  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 972355 ă  yxdddy ՊP3 #&a\  P6G;&P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  g#4r   g#4r  Wedgewood Communications CompanyR) R) Certification To OperateR) An Open Video SystemR)  SH -< ORDER TP  S -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: -ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18247; 47 C.F.R.  76.1502(a).v  S- ` #x3.` ` Despite the streamlined nature of the certification process, the Commission intended it to  xprovide purposeful representations regarding the responsibilities of the open video system operator by  SH - xNrequiring that applicants verify their certifications and provide specified information.^ H H(] {O0-ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1824546.^ To obtain  S - xjcertification, an applicant must file FCC Form 1275, which requires, among other things: (a) a statement  S - xof ownership, including a list of all affiliated entities;s ~ (] yOr- xԍWe note that for purposes of determining whether a party is an affiliate, we have adopted the definitions  xZcontained in the notes to Section 76.501 of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.501, with certain modifications. 47 C.F.R.  x1500(g). Generally, we will consider an entity to be an open video system operator's "affiliate" if the open video  {O- x,system operator holds 5% or more of the entity's stock, whether voting or nonvoting. Implementation of Section  {O- x302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Open Video Systems, CS Docket No. 9646, Third Report and Order  {O^- xZand Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 20227, 20235 (1996) ("Third Report and Order"); 47 C.F.R. 1500(g).s (b) a representation that the applicant will comply  S - xwith the Commission's regulations under Section 653(b);  (] yO- xԍUnder this section the applicant agrees to comply with the Commission's requirements regarding non xdiscriminatory carriage; just and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions; a onethird capacity limit on the amount  xof activated channel capacity on which an open video system operator may select programming when demand for  xcarriage exceeds system capacity; channel sharing; sports exclusivity, network nonduplication, and syndicated  {O-exclusivity; and nondiscriminatory treatment in presenting information to subscribers. See 47 C.F.R.  1502(a). (c) a list of the names of the communities the  xapplicant anticipates it will serve; (d) a statement of the anticipated type and amount of capacity that the  xjsystem will provide; and (e) a representation as to whether the applicant is a cable operator applying for certification within its cable franchise area. "0 ,`(`(88,"Ԍ S-  g#4r X g#4r II.xWEDGEWOOD'S APPLICATION  S- ` x4.` ` Wedgewood indicates in its application that it intends to provide 240 channels of analog  S- xLservice to subscribers in Chicago, Illinois.(] yO- xԍWedgewood lists six community unit identification numbers for Chicago communities to be served. Wedgewood Application, Exhibit 2. As required by Form 1275, Wedgewood provides a separate  x. g#4r X g#4r statement of ownership; makes the required eligibility and compliance representations; and provides the  xZrequired system information, system capacity, list of communities to be served, and verification statements.  x= In response to the question on Form 1275 asking whether the applicant is a cable operator applying for certification within its cable franchise area, Wedgewood responded that the question was not applicable.  S- III.xCOMMENTS  SH - ` x5.` ` Chicago argues that Wedgewood's application is deficient and should be rejected because  S - xWedgewood falsely represented on its Form 1275 that it is not a cable operator.@ (] yO-ԍChicago Comments at 56.@ Chicago states that  x=Wedgewood is a cable operator because it provides "cable service" over a "cable system," as those terms  S - xare defined in the Communications Act. (] {O -ԍId. at 69 (citing 47 U.S.C.  522(5), 522(7) (definitions of "cable operator" and "cable system," respectively)). As evidence of Wedgewood's status as a cable operator,  x=Chicago attaches to its opposition a copy of a letter dated September 25, 1997 ("September 25 Letter"),  xthat it received from Wedgewood in which Wedgewood stated that it "intends to file an application for  SX- xa cable franchise with the City of Chicago for the areas in which it is now operating."=XB(] {O:-ԍId., Exhibit A.= Chicago argues  x\that this constitutes an admission by Wedgewood that it is a cable operator, since cable operators are  S- xrequired by the Communications Act to obtain a franchise.`\(] {O|- xԍId. at 910. Chicago notes that Wedgewood disputed this view on October 1, 1997, when it stated that the  {OF- xSeptember 25 Letter "should not be construed as conceding that Wedgewood is required to obtain a franchise." Id. at 10 (quotation marks in original).` Chicago claims that the Commission's  S- xanticipated ruling in Motion of Entertainment Connections, Inc. for Declaratory Ruling, DA 97353  S- x ("ECI"), will likely be dispositive as to Wedgewood's status as a cable operator.R (] {OR- xԍECI is a proceeding pending before the Commission in which the regulatory status of companies with  x.operations apparently similar to those of Wedgewood is at issue. The local franchising authorities and cable  xfranchisees for the communities in which the companies operate argue that they are unfranchised cable operators.  x<The companies themselves argue that they are satellite master antenna television ("SMATV") service providers exempt from the cable franchise requirement.R Chicago urges the  xzCommission to prohibit Wedgewood from refiling its application until its status as a cable operator is  Sl-resolved.;l(] {O$-ԍId. at 1113.;  S- ` ~x6.` ` Chicago also claims that Wedgewood may have provided an invalid verification because  xthe individual who verified the Form 1275 under the title "President" may not actually be Wedgewood's"<,`(`(88C"  S- xpresident.;(] {Oh-ԍId. at 1314.; Chicago notes that the September 25 Letter attached to its opposition is signed by a different  x.individual as Wedgewood's "President." Chicago argues that the discrepancy between the September 25  xLetter and the Form 1275 suggests that the signatory of the Form 1275 may have falsely represented that  S- xhe is the president of Wedgewood.3Z(] {O-ԍId. 3 In addition, Chicago adds that Wedgewood correspondence dated  S`-as late as October 22, 1997, is signed as president by the signatory of the September 25 Letter.8`(] {O-ԍId. at 13.8  S- ` x7.` ` Chicago further asserts that the Commission's procedural rules governing open video  xsystem certifications deny interested parties a meaningful opportunity to comment on applications and  S- xtherefore violate the constitutional right to due process.~(] {O -ԍId. at 1416 (citing the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution). Chicago claims that the Commission's fiveday  xcomment period "does not afford a municipality a sufficient time in which to reasonably prepare legitimate  Sp-objections."8p(] {O -ԍId. at 16.8  SH -T ă  S - ` x8.` ` 21st Century, like Chicago, asserts that Wedgewood is a cable operator and therefore  S - x<misrepresented its status as such on the Form 1275.|Z (] yO:- xԍ21st Century Comments at 34. 21st Century further asserts that Wedgewood is operating its system illegally  x-because it has not obtained a franchise as required by Chicago's franchise ordinance and Section 621(b)(1) of the  {O-Communications Act. Id. (citing 47 U.S.C.  541(b)(1)).| In addition, 21st Century contends that Wedgewood  xis in violation of the Commission's requirements regarding the timing of open video system certification  S - xyfilings because Wedgewood commenced operations before it sought open video system certification.9 (] {O -ԍId. at 23.9 In  x=support of its argument, 21st Century cites Section 76.1502(a) of the Commission's rules, which directs  xapplicants intending to construct facilities to seek certification before construction is commenced, and  S0-directs all other applicants to seek certification before they initiate service.Z0V (] {O&-ԍId. at 2 (citing 47 C.F.R.  76.1502(a)).Z  S- IV.xDISCUSSION  S- ` x9.` ` Part C, Question 1 on Form 1275 asks, "If you are a cable operator applying for  xycertification within your cable franchise area, are you qualified to operate an open video system under 47  xC.F.R.  76.1501?" Wedgewood marked the box labelled "N/A" for "not applicable." Chicago and 21st  xzCentury strenuously argue that Wedgewood is a cable system operating without a franchise. Chicago  xprovides a recent letter in which Wedgewood states that it "intends to file an application for a cable  S- x franchise with the City of Chicago for the areas in which it is now operating."D(] yOP'-ԍChicago Comments, Exhibit A.D There are a range of"x,`(`(883"  xallegations made, not all of which can be resolved in the limited scope of the certification process. The  x=certification process was established to examine the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the Form 1275 filing.  S`- ` x 10.` ` The commenters' allegations and Wedgewood's statements, both in its Form 1275 and its  x.correspondence with Chicago, raise legitimate questions regarding Wedgewood's candor in responding to  xPart C, Question 1 on Form 1275. By merely checking the box "N/A" without further explanation,  xkWedgewood has failed to inform the Commission fully regarding information that could be material in  x{determining whether Wedgewood is eligible to be certified as an open video system operator. The  xyCommission must have full confidence in the truthfulness of representations made to it by applicants for  xCommission authorization to provide a service or operate a facility. As the United States Court of  xAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated, "the Commission must rely heavily on the  xcompleteness and accuracy of the submissions made to it, and its applicants in turn have an affirmative  S - xduty to inform the Commission of the facts it needs in order to fulfill its statutory mandate." (] {O` - xԍRKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d 215, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927 and 457 U.S. 1119 (1982). An  xNapplicant's failure to come forward with a candid statement of relevant facts, whether or not such  xinformation is particularly elicited by the Commission, is a breach of the applicant's obligation to be  S -truthful. "(] {OB- xԍIn re Applications of Liberty Cable Co., WT Docket No. 9641, 11 FCC Rcd 14133, 1413839 (1996) (citing  {O -In re Application of Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452, 8491-92 (1995)).  S0- ` x 11.` ` The Communications Act allows the Commission only 10 days to review an open video  x{system application and determine whether the applicant has met the statutory requirements. The  x.Commission affords commenters five days to present their views. The time constraints imposed on the  xCommission and commenters heighten the importance of full disclosure of all relevant facts by open video  xsystem applicants. To fulfill its statutory mandate, the Commission must have all information necessary  xLto allow an analysis of the applicant's qualifications to operate an open video system. The applicant, as  xthe filing party, is in control of the timing of its filing and should not file its application unless and until it is able to provide accurate and complete responses to all Form 1275 questions.  S- ` x 12.` ` The statutory 10day time limit imposed upon the Commission and the limited pleading  xNcycle does not permit us to adequately address Wedgewood's appropriate regulatory status. The  xCommission must be able to rely on the accuracy and adequacy of the representations contained in the  x?Form 1275 certification application. In this instance, we believe that the commenters have raised  xsufficient concern regarding Wedgewood's candor in completing its application to require that we deny  S-Wedgewood's open video system certification.m X~(] yO"- xԍIn light of our basis to deny Wedgewood's application, we need not rule on the parties' other objections. We  xnote, however, that if Wedgewood refiles for open video system certification it should clarify any confusion as to the authority of the individual that verifies the refiled Form 1275.m  S- ` x 13.` ` We note that denial of an open video system certification application does not preclude  S- xan applicant from filing a revised certification application or from refiling its original submission with a" ,`(`(88"  S- x>statement addressing the issues in dispute.A!(] yOh-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.1502(d).A Such refilings must be served on any objecting party or parties and affected local communities.  S- V.xORDERING CLAUSES  S8- `  x 14.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the certification of Wedgewood Communications  S-Company to operate an open video system IS DENIED .  S- ` Cx15.` ` This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to the authority  S-delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules.="X(] yO -ԍ47 C.F.R.  0.321.= x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhMeredith J. Jones  x` ` hhChief, Cable Services Bureau