******************************************************** 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 Fred Campbell d/b/a A1A TV, ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CSR 5234-L ) Time Warner Cable - St. Augustine, FL,) Respondent ) ) John P. Ruditis, Petitioner ) ) v. ) CSR 5247-L ) Time Warner Cable - St. Augustine, FL,) Respondent ) ) Petitions for Reconsideration ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 6, 1998 Released: November 10, 1998 By the Acting Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. Fred Campbell, d/b/a A1A TV, ("Campbell") and John P. Ruditis ("Ruditis") have filed petitions for reconsideration of separate memorandum opinion and orders released in each of the captioned proceedings. The petitioners seek reconsideration of the Cable Services Bureau's determination, in both proceedings, that Time Warner Cable may require an insurance policy protecting it from any liability flowing from petitioners' use of leased access channels. The initial decisions found that Time Warner, as a condition for the provision of commercial leased access service, may require the petitioners to acquire insurance policies providing for errors and omissions coverage and naming Time Warner as an additional insured party. Time Warner filed a motion to dismiss the instant petitions, as well as oppositions to the petitions. 2. We address both petitions in one order because they raise similar issues. We dismiss the Campbell petition in File No. CSR 5234-L because it is filed one day after the thirty days allowed by statute for the filing of a petition for reconsideration. The Campbell petition, filed on July 21, 1998, seeks reconsideration of Campbell, which was released on June 18, 1998. The thirty day statutory period for seeking reconsideration of Campbell expired on Saturday, July 18, 1998. Even allowing for a filing on the next business day, Monday, July 20, 1998, Campbell's petition, which was not received at the Commission until July 21, 1998, must be dismissed as untimely filed. Section 405(a) of the Communications Act prescribes that petitions for reconsideration "must be filed within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of the order, decision, report, or action complained of." Because the time period for filing petitions for reconsideration is prescribed by statute, the Commission may not ordinarily waive or extend the filing period. Even if we were to rule on the merits of Campbell's petition, we would not reverse our initial decision for the same reasons we deny the Ruditis petition below. 3. We deny the Ruditis petition in File No. 5247-L because it fails to present any facts or argument that has not already been considered in Ruditis. The Ruditis petition attempts to reargue the matter of the reasonableness of Time Warner's insurance requirement. Ruditis fails to present any new factual information which shows that Time Warner's insurance requirement is unreasonable. Instead, Ruditis suggests that Time Warner imposed the insurance requirement for the purpose of discouraging programmers from obtaining leased access channel capacity. No factual basis is presented in support of this allegation. Campbell's untimely petition also makes a similar unsupported allegation, which is also rejected. 4. We found in both Campbell and Ruditis that Time Warner met the Commission's requirement to justify the reasonableness of the insurance requested of these particular leased access programmers. First, the insurance requirements at issue were found to be substantially like that imposed on any other leased access programmer leasing capacity on any of Time Warner's cable systems nationwide or on national satellite networks that cannot demonstrate sufficient financial resources to support reliance on an indemnifications clause. Second, we found that Time Warner has a reasonable concern that the leased access programming presented by Campbell and Ruditis exposes Time Warner to risks of liability. Finally, we found that Ruditis had not demonstrated possession of financial resources sufficient to provide any assurance that an indemnification clause, in lieu of insurance, would offer practical protection against the liability risks that may be incurred by Time Warner in carrying their programming. The petitions for reconsideration provide no new information that causes us to reconsider those findings. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for reconsideration filed by Fred Campbell, d/b/a A1A TV, in File No. CSR 5234-L IS DISMISSED, and the petition for reconsideration filed by John P. Ruditis in File No. CSR 5247-L IS DENIED. 6. 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 Deborah Klein, Acting Chief Consumer Protection and Competition Division Cable Services Bureau