WPC#Q 2M BR Z(urierw RomanCourierCG TimesCG Times BoldX@`7X@HP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSx6X@7\F WX@<?xxx,x6X@`7X@b8wC;,}Xw PE37XPDc7zC;,EXz_ pi7Xx/c81, c PE37PxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd3|wHPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\F WXP2I ZnQXx6X@7X@Bibliogrphy@6jBibliographyB =(B5I *Bw;4I.E Doc InitI@6jInitialize Document StyleI *Bw;4I.E    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲ2{5q]a1DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*BF *  ׃  a2DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*B*    a3DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*B0     a4DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*B   . 2 eee p p: a5DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*B  a6DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*B  a7DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*B ` ` ` a8DocumentE+B*w;Document StyleXB =(B5I "*B ` ` ` 2   t  Tech Init#@6jInitialize Technical StyleI #*Bw;4I.E  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B 4!     a2Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B *    a3Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B'   2 k  ua4Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B&   a5Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B&   . a6Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B&!"  . a7Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B&#$  . 29,[ a8Technical+B*w;Technical Document StyleXB =(B5I $*B&%&  . PleadingI%@6jHeader for numbered pleading paper*Bw;4I.E'(   ,#Xw P7XP##Xw P7XP# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   a1Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*B8)*@   a2Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*BA+,@` `  ` ` ` 21kra3Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*BJ-.` ` @  ` `  a4Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*BS/0` `  @  a5Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*B\12` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*Be34` `  hh#@( hh# 2c+|xa7Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*Bn56` `  hh#(@- ( a8Right Par+B*w;Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB5I +*Bw78` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a1OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B$9:a2OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B+;<` ` 2- !\"a3OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B:=>` ` `  a4OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B E?@` ` ` a5OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B!PAB` ` ` hhha6OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B"[CD` ` ` hhh2+#$p0] F a7OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B#fEF` ` ` hhha8OutlineE+B*w;I. A. 1. a. (1) (a) i) a)B =(B5I =*B$qGH` ` ` hhhpppŠ#Xw P7}XP#X01Í ÍX0Í Íҫx6X@7X@<6X9`(CourierXXw P7XP* `CG TimesXXw P7XP* `CG TimesXXw P7XP* `CG TimesXx P7P* `CG Times[ PP' `"CG Times 12ptx P7P* `CG Times[ PP' `"CG Times 12ptx P7P* `CG TimesXw P 7XP* `CG TimesXXw P 7XP* `CG TimesXXw P 7XP* `CG TimesXXw P 7XP* `CG TimesXXw P 7XP* `CG TimesXXw P7XP* `CG TimesX` P7P* `CG TimesXw P7XP* `CG TimesX2++JXI3|Q2u7f ,ZD7q",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2Pf 7 CHZN",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx I. INTRODUCTION ă   m` ` On March 11, 1996, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  \(FCC 9699) ( Notice), requesting comment on how it should implement the regulatory  Aframework for open video systems ( OVS). In response, the Cities filed Joint  comments to promote Congress goals including flexible entry into the video services  Y- jmarket for telephone companies and regulatory streamlining while maintaining important  klocal interests. In addition, the National League of Cities, the National Association of  >Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the National Association of Counties, the  U.S. Conference of Mayors, Montgomery County, and several cities (hereinafter   NLC), filed joint comments containing specific proposals for implementing the OVS regulatory framework.   ` ` In their comments, both the Cities and the NLC identified key principles that must  guide the Commission in formulating its rules. Particularly, the Commissions rules"%0*((R&` "  .regarding the PEG and other Title VI requirements mandated by Congress for OVS must  ensure that OVS operators will meet local community needs and interests. Further, the  LCommission must recognize that the 1996 Telecommunications Act does not permit cable  operators to become OVS operators. Finally, the Commissions rules must acknowledge  the property interests that local governments hold in the local public rightsofway, and  the Commission must ensure the payment of fees in lieu of franchise fees by OVS operators.   ` ` In addition, the Cities strongly support the NLCs comments, which include a  Ldiscussion of nondiscrimination provisions to ensure open and affordable access to OVS.  LThe Cities urge the Commission to adopt the principles set forth in the Cities and NLCs  lprior comments regarding formulation of the OVS rules. The Cities briefly discuss  below their experience in creating and implementing PEG obligations that meet critical local needs.  Y-H II. DISCUSSION ă   ` ` The Commissions statutory mandate in adopting PEG requirements for OVS is  clear. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission to establish PEG  obligations for OVS that are consistent with local needs and interests, and to impose on  Y- jan OVS operator obligations equivalent to those obligations imposed on cable operators. Ym!- \#Xw P 7}XP#  Ѝ See Comments of BelowNamed Political Subdivisions of the State of Minnesota at 56.  ^To fulfill these mandates, the Commission should, as proposed by the Cities and  0supported by the NLC, require OVS operators to negotiate PEG access agreements""b0*((#` "  Y- acceptable to the affected communities. Yy-#Xw P 7}XP#  Ѝ Id. at 78, 10. The Cities note that the NLC suggests a match  @or negotiate scheme. The Cities continue to assert that a match requirement is a secondbest alternative which affords somewhat less flexibility.w#Xw P 7XP#  Ѝ Id. at 9, no. 4.w ` ` The record in this proceeding amply demonstrates that local governments, in their role both as franchising authorities and PEG programmers, play a critical role in ensuring that local communications needs and interests are met. #Xw P 7XP#  Ѝ See e.g., Id. at 7 (franchising authorities have considerable experience in successfully negotiating, creating and implement ... PEG obligations); Comments and Petition for Reconsideration of the National Cable Television Association, Inc. at 34 ( The local franchising authority is the governmental entity best positioned to appreciate community needs and most experienced in the implementation of PEG access rules); and Joint Comments of Cablevision Systems Corporation and the California Cable Television Association at 21 ( Congress certainly understood that PEG access requirements are now imposed by localities to meet critical localism goals).  Moreover, local governments, as the National Cable Television Association states, are in the best position to deliver on the Acts intent to accomplish PEG access over open video systems.#Xw P7XP#  Ѝ Comments and Petition for Reconsideration of the National Cable Television Association, Inc. at 33. See also, Comments of MFS Communications Company, Inc. at 27 ( The manner in which OVS operators and/or their customer programmers comply with the PEG obligations should generally be worked out between the programmer and the local government entity that oversees the implementation of these rules for cable operators). ` ` In the last year alone, the Cities in conjunction in some cases with an affiliated nonprofit access center, ensured the production by thousands of PEG access producers of nearly 100,000 hours of new programming, including literally thousands of unique public, religious, governmental, educational and community interest programs and hundreds of radio programs. For example, the North Suburban Access Corporation, affiliated with the North Suburban Cable Commission, reports working with 174 producers to produce and air 9025 hours of programming including 338 new video programs and 49 radio programs aired via the cable system. ` ` It is important to note that the Cities provide vastly disparate programs and types of programming pursuant to vastly disparate and individually negotiated PEG access obligations. In certain of the Cities, local government programming is of great concern, is highly watched and receives the greatest funding and support. In other of the Cities, local community interest programming and public access ( video soapbox) programming is of the greatest importance. Similarly, in some of the Cities there is an emphasis toward high production standards and professional quality programming while other communities focus on providing for the widest range of video speakers and listeners. What is of critical importance is that these widely disparate considerations have been addressed at the local level to meet local needs and interests, and are secured by obligations negotiated by local government. The Cities strongly urge the Commission to maintain this local emphasis in adopting OVS rules.J$ III. CONCLUSION ă ` ` The Cities respectfully request the Commission to adopt a framework for OVS consistent with the proposals and principles previously recommended by the Cities and the NLC, et al., in their comments. ` `  hh#(Respectfully submitted on behalf of the abovenamed political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota. ` `  hh#(- BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. ` `  hh#(-By  DATED: D3 1, 4Dhh#(-By  ` `  hh#(- Thomas D. Creighton, #1980X ` `  hh#(- Robert J. V. Vose, #251872 ` `  hh#(- Suite 1200 The Colonnade ` `  hh#(- 5500 Wayzata Boulevard ` `  hh#(- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 ` `  hh#(- (612) 5461200 ` `  hh#(- Fax (612) 5461003 #` P7P#` `  hh#(- A:\COMMENTS.WPD#Xw P7XP#