Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Ohio State University:) ) Petition for Special Relief Requesting ) CSR-5349-X Waiver of 47 C.F.R.  56.501(a), or) in the Alternative, Clarification of ) Definition of "Cable System" ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 7, 1999 Released: June 9, 1999 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. Ohio State University (the "University") filed the above captioned petition requesting a waiver of the Commission's cable television station cross-ownership rule, 47 C.F.R.  76.501(a), or for a declaration that the University's video distribution system is not a "cable system" as defined in  76.5 of the Commission's rules. This petition is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the University's petition for waiver of the cross-ownership rule is granted. BACKGROUND 2. The University is a public land grant institution located in Columbus, Ohio. Its undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs enroll approximately 48,000 students. For several years, the University has provided a video delivery system ("System"), consisting of 54 channels, to the residence halls and academic and administrative buildings, including the University's Medical Center, on its Columbus, Ohio campus, and an off-campus laboratory building in which the University leases space. 3. The University is the licensee of two public television stations, WOSU-TV, channel 34 at Columbus, and WPBO-TV, Channel 42 at Portsmouth, Ohio. In the instant case, it is the ownership of WOSU-TV that presents regulatory obstacles to the University's video distribution plans. The Commission's cross-ownership rules prohibit the common ownership of a broadcast station and a cable system if they have overlapping service areas. Therefore, Commission approval by way of waiver is necessary for the University to operate a broadcast television station while simultaneously operating a video distribution system. 4. The University contends that, notwithstanding that its System crosses city streets, the video delivery system does not constitute a "cable system" for the purposes of Section 613 of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, because the system will not have "subscribers." Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  76.5, a cable system is defined as a "facility ... that is designed to provide cable service and which is provided to multiple subscribers within a community ... ." Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  76.5(ee), subscribers are defined as members of the general public who receive broadcast programming distributed by a cable television system. In this case, the University contends that the intended recipients of the service, its student residents, housing staff, and academic and administrative employees are not members of the general public. 5. In the alternative, if the Commission finds that the University's video delivery system constitutes a "cable system," the University contends that the Commission should waive its cross-ownership rule. The University argues that a waiver would not decrease the diversity of offered programming or harm economic competition in the Columbus broadcast station's market. DISCUSSION 6. The Commission's cross-ownership rule 47 C.F.R.  501(a) reads in relevant part: No cable television system ... shall carry the signal of any television broadcast station if such a system directly or indirectly owns, operates, controls, or has na interest in a TV broadcast station whose predicted contour ... overlaps in whole or in part the service area of such system ... ." The policy goals of Section 76.501(a) are to increase competition in the economic marketplace and in the marketplace of ideas. In cases where enforcement of the ban on cross-ownership does not promote these goals, a waiver of these rules will be entertained by the Commission. 7. In the instant case, we believe the stated policy objectives of the cross-ownership rules would not be impaired by granting a waiver and allowing the University to simultaneously own and operate a broadcast station and campus video distribution System. As a noncommercial broadcast station, WOSU-TV does not compete economically with the other local broadcast stations. Thus, the University does not have the same incentives to engage in anticompetitive conduct as a commercial cable operator might because its broadcast channel does not compete with the other local broadcast channels for advertising revenue. Furthermore, the University's System will not be available outside of the confines of the University. This limits substantially a waiver's potential to undermine competition in the delivery of video services in Columbus, Ohio. 8. Operation of the System would have the beneficial effect of increasing programming choices available to students residing on campus. The University System will enable students to receive instructional and educational programming, in addition to local and distant broadcast stations. Moreover, the System will serve as an integral part of the University's education function with the students being the primary beneficiaries of the System. We find that the circumstances of this case warrant a waiver of the Commission's cross- ownership rules. Because we find that a waiver of the Commission's cross-ownership rules is appropriate under these circumstances, we do not need to address the issue of whether the University's video delivery system constitutes a "cable system" pursuant to the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSE 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for waiver of 47 C.F.R.  76.501(a) filed by Ohio State University is GRANTED. 10. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Deborah A. Lathen Chief, Cable Services Bureau