Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Open Video Systems CS Docket No. 96-46 TO: The Commission REPLY COMMENTS OF THE BELOW-NAMED POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA The following political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota respectfully submit these reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission ( Commission or FCC ) in the above-captioned proceeding: North Suburban Cable Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview. Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Burnsville and Eagan. Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Anoka, Champlin, Ramsey and Andover. North Central Suburban Cable Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Coon Rapids, Ham Lake, Lexington, Lino Lakes and Spring Lake Park. Columbia Heights Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota City of Columbia Heights. Lake Minnetonka Telecommunications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Long Lake, Medina, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Orono, St. Bonifacius, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria and Woodland. Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Big Lake, Buffalo, Cokato, Dassel, Delano, Elk River, Maple Lake, Monticello, Rockford, and Watertown. South Washington County Cable Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Newport, St. Paul Park, Woodbury, Afton, and Cottage Grove, and the Minnesota Townships of Grey Cloud and Denmark. Ramsey/Washington Counties Cable Communications Commission Representing the Minnesota Cities of Birchwood, Dellwood, Grant, Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Lake Township, and Willernie. All such jurisdictions are collectively referred to herein as the Cities . I. INTRODUCTION On March 11, 1996, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 96-99) ( Notice ), requesting comment on how it should implement the regulatory framework for open video systems ( OVS ). In response, the Cities filed Joint comments to promote Congress goals including flexible entry into the video services market for telephone companies and regulatory streamlining while maintaining important local 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 Commission s rules 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 Commission must recognize that the 1996 Telecommunications Act does not permit cable operators to become OVS operators. Finally, the Commission s rules must acknowledge the property interests that local governments hold in the local public rights-of-way, and the Commission must ensure the payment of fees in lieu of franchise fees by OVS operators. In addition, the Cities strongly support the NLC s comments, which include a discussion of nondiscrimination provisions to ensure open and affordable access to OVS. The Cities urge the Commission to adopt the principles set forth in the Cities and NLC s prior 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. II. DISCUSSION The Commission s 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 an OVS operator obligations equivalent to those obligations imposed on cable operators. To fulfill these mandates, the Commission should, as proposed by the Cities and supported by the NLC, require OVS operators to negotiate PEG access agreements acceptable to the affected communities. The Cities note that the NLC suggests a match or negotiate scheme. The Cities continue to assert that a match requirement is a second-best alternative which affords somewhat less flexibility. 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. Moreover, local governments, as the National Cable Television Association states, are in the best position to deliver on the Act s intent to accomplish PEG access over open video systems. In the last year alone, the Cities in conjunction in some cases with an affiliated non-profit 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. III. CONCLUSION 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. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the above-named political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota. BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. By DATED: May 11, 1996 By Thomas D. Creighton, #1980X Robert J. V. Vose, #251872 Suite 1200 The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 546-1200 Fax (612) 546-1003 A:\COMMENTS.WPD