********************************************************    
                         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

In the Matter of:                  )
                                   )
Urban Communications Transport Corporation   ) 
Certification to Operate an        )
Open Video System                  )
                                 
                                 
                        CONSOLIDATED ORDER
   Adopted:  December 30, 1996          Released:  December 30, 1996


By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   By this Order, we consolidate two proceedings into one and rule on the merits in
each.  On December 20, 1996, Urban Communications Transport Corporation ("UCTC") filed an
application for certification to operate an open video system pursuant to Section 653(a)(1) of the
Communications Act and the Commission's rules in the City of New York, including the boroughs
of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx.  Also on December 20, 1996, UCTC
filed an application for certification to operate an open video system pursuant to Section 653(a)(1)
of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules in Westchester County, New York.  As
provided in its rules, the Commission published notice of receipt of the certification applications and
posted the applications on the Internet.  Comments on the certification applications were filed by
the City of New York Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications ("DOITT")
and Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision").

     2.   Pursuant to Section 653(a)(1) of the Communications Act, any person may obtain
certification to operate an open video system.  In light of the brief period (ten days) for Commission
review of certification filings, the Commission concluded that Congress intended a streamlined
certification process.  Open video system operators may apply for certification at any point prior
to the commencement of service, subject to two conditions.  If construction of new physical plant
is required, the applicant must obtain Commission approval of its certification prior to the
commencement of construction.  If no new construction is required, certification must be obtained
prior to the commencement of service, allowing sufficient time to comply with the Commission's
notification requirements to programming providers.

     3.   Despite its streamlined nature, the Commission intended the certification process to
provide purposeful representations regarding the responsibilities of the open video system operator,
by requiring, inter alia, the submission of specified information and that certifications be verified. 
To obtain certification, a party must file FCC Form 1275 which requires, among other things:  (a)
a statement of ownership, including a list of all affiliated entities; (b) a representation that the
applicant will comply with the Commission's regulations under Section 653(b); (c) a general
description of the anticipated communities or areas to be served; (d) a statement on the anticipated
type and amount of capacity that the system will provide.

     4.   We have reviewed the information contained in the Form 1275s filed by UCTC and
the comments of DOITT and Cablevision.  In its filings, UCTC provides, as requested by Form
1275: company information including a separate statement of ownership, including affiliated entities;
makes the required eligibility and compliance representations; and provides the required system
information, system capacity and verification statements.  


     5.   DOITT asserts that UCTC improperly served a copy of its New York Application on
the clerk of the City of New York, and that the application should have properly been served on
DOITT.  DOITT states that by operation of the Charter of the City of New York, Chapter 48, DOITT
has been designated to administer all telecommunications matters within the City.  In addition,
DOITT asserts that in 1993 UCTC received from the City of New York a franchise for local high-
capacity telecommunications that required UCTC to "substantially complete the installation of the
Initial Backbone" of its system within 9 months of the effective date of the franchise.  According
to DOITT, UCTC has to date not commenced construction of any portion of its system.  DOITT
requests that the Commission either delay for 10 days, or in the alternative, deny UCTC's new York
application.    

     6.   Cablevision opposes UCTC's applications on three grounds.  First, Cablevision
asserts that the two FCC Form 1275s submitted by UCTC incomplete.  According to Cablevision,
although UCTC indicates the ownership of 65% of the interests in Urban Cable, UCTC fails to
indicate the ownership identity of the remaining 35% interest in Urban Cable, and whether this
interest consists of limited or general partnership interests.  Second, Cablevision argues that certain
actions by UCTC and its affiliated company, Urban Cable raise serious questions about the character
of the applicants warranting denial of UCTC's applications.  Finally, Cablevision asserts that UCTC
provides no assurance that UCTC has served a copy of its applications upon all affected local
communities.  

II.  DISCUSSION

     7.   UCTC has provided the requisite facts and representations concerning the open video
systems it intends to operate and has certified that it "agrees to comply and remain in compliance
with each of the Commission's regulations" under Section 653(b).  However, based on our review
of the Form 1275 open video system applications and the comments, we find that UCTC, has failed
to adequately serve copies of its applications on the clerk or designated official of all affected
communities in which it intends to operate its open video systems.  UCTC's New York Form 1275
indicates that it was served on the City Clerk, City of New York.  However, DOITT is the designated
telecommunications official within the City of New York and should have been served by UCTC. 
In the case of Westchester County, UCTC served the clerk of Westchester County.  However,
Commission records indicate that there are numerous municipalities located within Westchester
County that have been certified to regulate rates by the Commission.  UCTC should have served
each local franchising authority as well as Westchester County with a copy of its application.

     8.   With regard to the issues raised by Cablevision, we remind that the open video system
certification process was not intended to function as a "back-door" Section 214 requirement.
Moreover, if the representations contained in the certification filings prove to be materially false or
inaccurate, the Commission retains the authority to revoke an open video system operator's
certification or to impose such other penalties it deems appropriate, including forfeiture.   

     9.   We note that denial of an open video system certification application does not
preclude an applicant from filing a revised certification or from refiling its original submission with
a statement addressing the issues in dispute.  Such refilings must be served on any objecting party
or parties and affected local communities.  

III. ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the certification of Urban Communications
Transport Corporation to operate an open video system in New York City, including the boroughs
of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx, is DENIED.

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of Urban Communications
Transport Corporation to operate an open video system in Westchester County, New York is
DENIED.

     12.  This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to the authority
delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


               
                         Meredith J. Jones
                         Chief, Cable Services Bureau