WPC 2MBVRKZ3|X  7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\&UPXP2> K Z3|X  "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNeBDoc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Ltoc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2U?N@vQA}QBStoc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2\CUD XE'ZFvE\index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF 2^Gl\HrY]I]J}J^_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH head1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ 2[aK^L_M`N`a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfME` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNP  ` ` ` hhh 2fOaPAbQcKca6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq "i~'^5>I\\>>>\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\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2soKGfKhKjK(m"i~'^5>g\\>>>\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\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%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&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^5>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\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\Qy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;PR2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P S2e=5,&e4  pG;&T7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP Uy.\80,>\4  pG;V7nC:,8D yO''ԍ8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993).> the  xZCommission initially adopted rules for leased access addressing maximum reasonable rates, reasonable  x&terms and conditions of use, minority and educational programming, and procedures for resolution of" ,))II? "  S' x@disputes.iZ5 {Oh'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.970, 76.971, 76.975 and 76.977 (1995).i The Commission modified some of its leased access rules in Second Report and Order and  S'Second Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order ("Second Order").b^ZZ5 {O' x3 ԍ12 FCC Rcd 5267 (1997). See also Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order and Further  {O' xk Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92266 and CS Docket No. 9660, 11 FCC Rcd 16933 (1996)  {Oh'("Reconsideration Order").b  S' III.ALLEGATIONS AND ARGUMENT  S<' e d3.` ` The Firm is an advertising agency/video production company doing business throughout  xZthe United States producing thirty minute programs to air on commercial leased access channels. The  x^Firm accuses TCI of violating the Commission's leased access rules by responding too slowly to requests  xkfor leased access information, imposing unreasonable insurance requirements, and overcharging for rental  xof additional equipment used for airing leased access programming. The Firm alleges that it made a  xrequest by facsimile on March 26, 1999 for programming slots on TCI's San Jose, California cable system  x*at 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, April 15, 16 and 17, 1999 to coincide with  xa trade show in that market on those dates. The Firm contends it submitted a completed application for  S ' xservice and an insurance certificate with its request.D Z5 yO'ԍPetition at 1 and Exhibit 1.D In the absence of any response from TCI, The Firm,  xafter contacting TCI' production and programming manager by telephone, resubmitted its request on  S ' xApril5, 1999.D Z5 yO\'ԍPetition at 2 and Exhibit 2.D The Firm received by facsimile from TCI on April 7, 1999, a rate sheet, information on  xavailable time slots, and an indication that insurance department approval of the insurance certificate  S\' x/would be needed.D \Z5 yO'ԍPetition at 2 and Exhibit 3.D The Firm contends further that on April 9, its business manager found another  xfacsimile received at 6:30 p.m. on April 8 from TCI requesting alterations to the insurance certificate.  xThe Firm responded by sending a revised insurance certificate, a program tape and payment check to TCI  xMlater that day by facsimile and courier. The Firm contends that on the following Tuesday, April 13, in  x7response to a telephone message received from TCI, a more compatible tape format was sent to TCI and  S' xreceived by them on April 14.N 0 Z5 yOd'ԍPetition at 3 and Exhibits 5,6,7, & 8.N Finally in this connection, The Firm states that in the course of several  xcalls, mostly in the form of recorded messages received between April 16 and 19, 1999, it was informed  SD'that TCI would not air the programming tapes at the times requested.8 D Z5 yO!'ԍPetition at 23.8  S' e A4.` ` With respect to insurance coverage, The Firm contends that TCI unreasonably insists upon  x an alteration of a standard insurance certificate clause and proof of worker's compensation insurance  xcoverage. The Firm objects to TCI's request that the words "endeavor to" be deleted from a certificate  S|' xclause concerning the insurance carrier's obligations to provide notice of policy cancellation.6 |P Z5 yOl''ԍPetition at 6.6 It also"| ,_(_(II"  xobjects to providing proof of workman's compensation coverage on the grounds that use of channel  S' x&service does not involve the physical presence of its employees on TCI premises.6 Z5 yO@'ԍPetition at 6.6 Finally, The Firm  x3contends that TCI's tape player rental rate of $20 per hour is unreasonable, on the grounds that a tape  S'player can be obtained from other sources at rates that range from $60 to $150 per day.8XZ5 yO'ԍPetition at 67.8  S8' e 55.` ` The Firm contends that TCI, as a major MSO, is fully aware of its leased access  S' xobligations as described in the Second Order released over two years ago. The Firm claims that TCI  xnonetheless places low priority on leased access and willfully refused to air its leased access  S' xprogramming within a reasonable time.6Z5 yOJ 'ԍPetition at 2.6 The Firm seeks "maximum sanctions and fines against TCI for  xblatant violation" of its rights under Section 612 of the Communications Act, refund of $238.62 paid for  xairtime not provided, and reimbursement of $22,000 for lost revenues due to the programming not being  SJ 'aired when requested.6J xZ5 yOb'ԍPetition at 8.6  S ' e 6.` ` TCI contends that its responses to The Firm's requests for service were timely and within  xthe 15 day response time required by Section 76.970(h) of the Commission's rules. TCI states that The  xFirm's request letters and applications of March 26 and April 5, 1999 were received at outdated facsimile  xnumbers and were not forwarded to the responsible commercial office until March 30 and April 6, 1999,  SZ' xrespectively.;ZZ5 yO'ԍTCI Response at .2.; In both cases, unsigned applications were received along with insurance certificates that  xcontained an unacceptable notice clause that failed to ensure notice of policy cancellation. TCI states that,  xfollowing a telephone conversation with The Firm's president on April 7, 1999, the insurance certificate  xwas forwarded to its insurance department for review, and a rate schedule and description of available time  S' x slots were sent by facsimile to The Firm.;Z5 yO'ԍTCI Response at .3.; TCI's manager also explained that he would be out of the  xoffice for a week or so after April 8, and that things would need to proceed promptly if the requested  xprogram dates were to be met. TCI asserts that The Firm has provided acceptable insurance certificates  xin the past to TCI cable systems across the country and is therefore fully aware of TCI's insurance  S' x@certificate requirements, but submitted a defective certificate in this case.W( Z5 yO ' x ԍTCI states that in 1996 and 1997 its parent company accommodated The Firm by allowing that company to  x provide an acceptable national corporate insurance certificate deemed sufficient for all TCIaffiliated cable systems,  x and stood ready to continue this arrangement with The Firm. However, despite notification from TCI's parent that  x@ The Firm has allowed the insurance certificate to expire, The Firm did not provide new or valid certificates for national clearance. TCI Response at 8.W TCI states that although a  xlisting of changes to the insurance certificate were sent to The Firm on April 8, 1999, a modified  xinsurance certificate containing the same objectionable words "endeavor to" in the notice clause was",_(_(IIK"  S' xreturned.aZ5 {Oh'ԍTCI Response at .8. See Petition, Exhibit 6 at. 2.a Not having received a satisfactory insurance certificate, TCI's manager then left instruction  xwith the production technician not to cablecast The Firm's programming. TCI contends that it reasonably  xinsisted on an insurance certificate that ensures notice of any policy cancellation. TCI also contends the  xrequirement for proof of workman's compensation insurance is reasonable, although none of The Firm's  xkemployees have a physical presence on TCI premises, because of concerns for injured employees seeking  S8'to reach TCI's "deep pockets."<8ZZ5 yO2'ԍTCI Response at .10.<  S' e 7.` ` TCI defends the reasonableness of the charge for tape playing equipment, contending that  xIit has "spent close to $35,000 to replace outdated leased access equipment at the San Jose system,  S' x including three VCRs.">Z5 yO" 'ԍTCI Response at 1011.> TCI further argues that it is inappropriate to utilize per day VCR rental rates  xkin determining the reasonableness of a VCR offered on an hourly basis. Finally, TCI stats that The Firm's $238.62 check tendered with the service application has been returned to The Firm uncashed.  S ' IV&dII.DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  S ' e 8.` ` The Firm's petition is denied. The record shows that The Firm bears major responsibility  xfor its programming not being aired on the requested dates. The Firm failed to provide an insurance  xcertificate that satisfied TCI's notice of policy cancellation requirements. In this connection, The Firm  x&provided no basis for a finding that TCI acted unreasonably in requiring a clause in the certificate that  S' xensured notice of policy cancellation.zZ5 yO"' x ԍTCI requested that the words "endeavor to" be deleted from the following cancellation clause: "Should any of  x the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will endeavor to  x mail 30 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left, but failure to mail such notice shall impose  {Oz' x no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents, or representative." See Petition, Exhibit 6, p. 2; Stefanski Affidavit and Exhibit 4 attached to TCI's Response. Although the Commission indicated in the Second Report that the  xburden is on cable operators to establish the reasonableness of insurance requirements, nothing suggests  xthat the Commission assumed a role in insurance contract negotiations or in risk analysis on behalf of  xQcable operators, insurance companies, or leased access programmers, as The Firm's petition implies in its  Sj'arguments concerning the insurance certificate clause and workman's compensation insurance coverage.|Zj, Z5 {O6' x ԍSee Church of new Bedford v. MediaOne, 14 FCC Rcd 2863, 2866 (CSB 1999). ("We believe it is best to  x permit the insurance industry, working together with leased access programmers and cable operators, to evaluate risks associated with carriage of commercial leased access programming on cable systems.).|  S' e 9.` ` The record also shows that delay resulted from The Firm's transmitting the service  xapplication to telephone numbers not associated directly with TCI's commercial office. The different time  xkzones in which the parties are located, and the resulting unanswered messages, also contributed to delays.  xxThe Firm provided no evidence that TCI purposely addressed The Firm's service request matters after the  xclose of normal business hours in the eastern time zone. The record shows, however, that TCI's manager  xforwarded The Firm's insurance certificate to its insurance department for review, and sent a rate schedule  xDand description of available time slots by facsimile to The Firm on April 7, 1999, following receipt of The"*N ,_(_(II~"  xFirm's service requests on March 30 and April 6. TCI's manager also explained that he would be out of  x*the office for a week or so after April 8, and that things would need to proceed promptly if the requested  x&program dates were to be met, We find that TCI responded to The Firm's leased access request well  S'within the 15 day time limit set forth in our rules.KZ5 {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.970(h).K  S8' e 10.` ` The Commission has indicated that a cable operator may impose charges in addition to  xZthe charges determined under Section 76.970 for the reasonable cost of other equipment and technical  xsupport actually provided to a leased access programmer if that equipment and technical support is not  S' xalso provided with other nonleased access programming.TZZ5 {O 'ԍSee Second Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 5325. T The only issue raised here by The Firm is cost.  xTCI's counsel represents that TCI has invested approximately $35,000 in leased access equipment at the  xkSan Jose system, including three VCRs. Such information does not establish the cost of providing a VCR  xfor leased access programming. Neither does The Firm's data relating to day rental rates for VCRs. In  S ' xLorilei Communications, Inc., d/b/a The Firm v. Scripps Howard Cable of Northwest Georgia,D Z5 yO'ԍ12 FCC Rcd 23281 (CSB 1997).D we found  xa $25 per program administrative and technical support fee to be reasonably related to costs, after  xreviewing labor and equipment cost information provided by the cable operator in that case. Considering  x@the nominal amount of time required for tape playing, the record here provides no basis for reaching a different conclusion with respect to TCI's $20 per hour VCR fee.  S2' e 11.` ` Finally, The Firm's request for reimbursement for loss of potential revenues and for  xrepayment of monies paid for requested services is also denied. First, the record shows that TCI returned  xThe Firm's $238.62 check for requested services. Secondly, The Firm failed to establish that TCI violated  xpany of the Commission's leased access rules. Moreover, the Commission's rules do not provide for recovery of monetary damages.  SB'  &d I V.ORDERING CLAUSES  S' e n12.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for relief filed by Lorilei  S'Communications, Inc. d/b/a The Firm in File No. 5400L IS DENIED .  Sz' e 13.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's  SR'rules.>R|Z5 yOn 'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  0.321.> ` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief  S:'` `  Cable Services Bureau#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#