********************************************************    
                         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: )
                  )
TCI CABLEVISION OF OAKLAND    )            
COUNTY, INC.      )     CSR-4790
                  )
                  )
Petition for Declaratory Ruling,           )
Preemption and Other Relief   )
Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  541, 544(e),            )
and 253           )
                                     

                                  ORDER

   Adopted:  November 13, 1997                     Released:  November 14, 1997

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

  1.    By this Order, we grant a motion ("Motion") filed by the City of Troy, Michigan ("the
City" or "Troy") on November 12, 1997, requesting an extension of time from November 14, 1997 to
November 26, 1997 for filing its reply to TCI's "Opposition to Petition for Partial Reconsideration"
("Opposition") filed by TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, Inc. ("TCI") on November 4, 1997.  The
City initiated this reconsideration proceeding by filing a petition on October 20, 1997, seeking partial
reconsideration of the Commission's September 19, 1997, Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 97-
331) in this proceeding ("Reconsideration Petition").  The City's petition is limited to the issue of Troy's
compliance with Section 621(b)(3)(B) of the Communications Act.  The current reply date under the
Commission's Rules is November 14, 1997.

  2.    The City's Reconsideration Petition raises new questions concerning TCI's "motives and
intent" with respect to the provision of telecommunications service over the City's rights-of-way.  The
City alleges that in June, 1997, it learned for the first time that TCI is leasing to TCG Detroit
approximately 16 miles of fiber optic cable in Troy, which TCG Detroit is using to provide
telecommunications services in its service area.  The City claims that more than four miles of this fiber
optic cable was installed in Troy's rights-of-way in violation of the City's right-of-way construction
ordinance, and that neither TCI nor TCG Detroit has ever made a formal application for or obtained a
license or franchise to use the City's rights-of-way to provide a telecommunications service in accordance
with Troy's Telecommunications Ordinance.  TCI contests  the City's allegations in its Opposition.  TCI
argues that, at the very least, correspondence between Troy and TCI indicates that Troy has known about
the agreement between TCI and TCG Detroit since July, 1995, and contends that it is authorized to
install the fiber optic cables in question in part pursuant to its annual maintenance permit from the City,
and in part through authorizations contained in other construction permits that were either previously
granted, or are currently pending.

  3.    In support of its Motion, the City states that in preparing its reply, it is necessary for
Troy to review various engineering records and right-of-way permits which TCI asserts covered some
of the construction in question.  In addition, the City claims that it must contact a former employee whom
TCI alleges knew of TCG's lease arrangement.  "Due to the press of other municipal business this has
taken longer than expected, and the review is not complete."  The City also represents that neither TCI,
nor the other party to the proceeding, PROTEC, object to the requested extension.

  4.    Section 1.46(a) of the Commission's Rules states that the Commission will not routinely
grant requests for extension of time.  Under the circumstances, we find that the arguments set forth in
the City's Motion justify the requested extension. 

  5.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED.


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION     
  


        John Logan
        Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau