WPCB 2BJZ Courier3|jx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 2100 M RM 8409HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\O!}cX@2 6 ZF v3|jHP LaserJet 5Si 2100 M RM 8409HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\O!}cX@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2=pRkk-a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2votY a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2  o  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2   Y 2 a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleXqq   l ^) I. ׃  2i+0 [[Doc InitInitialize Document Style  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2XIa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2Ka7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx X -#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Ameritech New Media Enterprises, Inc., File No. WPC7107, DA 951954 (Com. Car. Bur., Net. Serv. Div., Released Sept. 12, 1995).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# In that order, the Division denied a Consolidated Petition to Deny a total of six Ameritech applications that sought authority to construct cable television facilities,  Xe-including the abovecaptioned application.&eb> Xx-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э The Petition to Deny was filed by CTCAI, the Michigan Cable Television Association  Xa <("MCTA"), and the Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association ("OCTA").#x6X@`7X@# & For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss CTCAI's Application for Review as moot.  X - II. BACKGROUND ă  X- 2.xOn August 29, 1995, the Commission issued a public notice listing the abovecaptioned Section 214 application as accepted for filing pursuant to Section 63.16 of the Commission's rules. Section 63.16 provided streamlined procedures for carriers proposing to" 0*0*0*"  X-construct "standalone" cable television facilities in their telephone service areas.4% Xy-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э A "standalone" cable system was defined at 47 C.F.R.  63.16(b) as "one that does not share central office assets (USOA Accounts 2210 through 2232, 47 C.F.R.  32.221032.2232) or cable and wire facilities (USOA Accounts 2410 through 2441, 47 C.F.R.  32.241032.2441) with the carrier's regulated telephone business." On September 1, 1995, CTCAI, MCTA, and OCTA filed a Consolidated Petition to Deny six Ameritech Section 214 applications, including the Ameritech application to construct cable  X-television facilities for Glendale Heights, Illinois. The petitioners argued, inter alia, that Ameritech was precluded from relying upon Section 63.16 to the extent that Ameritech's proposed cable television system was not, in fact, a "standalone" system as that term  \!K wa \!K s defined in Section 63.16.  XJ-3.xUnder the fourteenday automatic approval procedures set forth in Section 63.16, Ameritech's application for Glendale Heights, Illinois was deemed approved on September 12, 1995. Also on September 12, 1995, the Division released an order denying the Consolidated Petition to Deny with respect to the cable television facilities that Ameritech proposed for  X -Michigan and Illinois.1 44% X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Ameritech New Media Enterprises, Inc., File Nos. WPC7099, WPC7103, WPC X-7104, WPC7105, WPC7106, WPC7107, DA 951954, Order (Com. Car. Bur., Net. Serv. Div., Released Sept. 12, 1995).1  X -  III. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW ă  X-4.xIn its Application for Review, CTCAI requests review of the Order of September 12, 1995, in which the Division denied CTCAI's petition to deny Ameritech's Section 214 application for Glendale Heights, Illinois. CTCAI contends that the Division erred in refusing to investigate CTCAI's allegations that the proposed cable television system is not a "stand X6-alone" system within the meaning of Section 63.16.o64% X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Application for Review at 35.o Accordingly, CTCAI asks the Commission to reverse the Division's order and revoke Ameritech's Section 214 authorization  X-pending resolution of the issues raised in its Application for Review.`j 4% X# -#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Id. at 8.`  X-  IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ă  X-5.xIn its opposition, Ameritech disputes CTCAI's claims that the proposed cable television system will not be a "standalone" system stating that the proposed facilities fully comply with the definition of a "standalone" cable system as set forth in Section 63.16(b) of"~ 0*(("  X-the Commission's rules.v4% Xy-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Ameritech Opposition at 27. Ameritech also criticizes attempts to impose requirements on "LEC standalone cable affiliates" more stringent than those outlined in the Commission's  XK-Fourth Report and Order. Ameritech Reply at 3. Ameritech points out that the Commission  X4-made an express finding in the Fourth Report and Order that current regulatory safeguards against crosssubsidy are sufficient to protect telephone service ratepayers when an incumbent  X-local exchange carrier ("ILEC") provides cable service over a standalone system. Id.   X-6.xOpTel, Inc., ("OpTel"), a company that operates private cable television systems throughout the United States through its subsidiaries, urges the Commission to investigate the "standalone" nature of Ameritech's proposed facilities in order to ensure that the cost of constructing those facilities is not borne by Ameritech's telephone service ratepayers to the  Xv-competitive detriment of new entrants, like OpTel.bv4% X--#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Id. at 24.b OpTel also urges the Commission to "broaden its public interest inquiry under Section 214" to include the effect of standalone cable systems affiliated with ILECs on competition in the video programming distribution  X1-market.g 14% X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э OpTel Comments at 3. g Accordingly, OpTel urges the Commission to revoke Ameritech's Section 214  X -authorization pending resolution of the issues raised in CTCAI's Application for Review.`  h 4% X3-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Id. at 5.`  X - V. DISCUSSION  X -7.xUpon reviewing the record established in this proceeding and in recognition of the  X -enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  4% Xq-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). we hereby dismiss the present Application for Review as moot. On February 8, 1996, the President signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act"). Section 302(a) of the Act (which added new Section 651(c) to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended) provides that common carriers "shall not be required to obtain a certificate under Section 214 with respect to the establishment or operation of a system for the delivery of video programming." This provision reflects Congress' intent to relieve carriers of the obligation to obtain Section 214 authorization in order to establish a system for the delivery of video programming. In addition, on March 11, 1996, the Commission rescinded Section 63.16, the rule under which  X-Ameritech had received its Section 214 authorization, in the Open Video System proceeding" 0*(("  X-that was initiated to implement Section 302 of the 1996 Act. J4% Xy-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Open Video  Xb-Systems, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket No. 9646, FCC No. 9699, paras. 7576 (Released March 11, 1996). Pursuant to Section 302(b)(3) of the 1996 Act, the Commission stated in the report and order portion of that proceeding: "We also hereby terminate the docket in which our video dialtone rules and policies were promulgated  X-(CC Docket No. 87266)." Id., para. 75. Former Section 63.16 was among the rules adopted in CC Docket No. 87266 that since were removed pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 302(b) of the 1996 Act.  Given that the system for which Ameritech received Section 214 authorization to construct constitutes "the establishment  X-or operation of a system for the delivery of video programming,"q 4% X] -#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э 1996 Act, sec. 302,  651(c).q and in light of the rescission of former Section 63.16 of the Commission's rules, we find that further review of the Section 214 issues raised by the applicant is no longer necessary.  Xv-8.xRegarding CTCAI and OpTel's arguments that the Commission's pole attachment rules are inadequate to prevent telephone companies from granting preferential pole attachment rates and conditions to their cable television affiliates, we find that these arguments are not properly raised in an application for review of a Section 214 authorization. Accordingly, we do not address CTCAI and OpTel's pole attachment arguments in the present order.  X -  X -1 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X -9.xPursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 302(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which added new Section 651(c) to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended), and Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Review filed by the Cable Television and Communications Association of Illinois IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhWilliam F. Caton  X-x` ` hhActing Secretary pp#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#