WPCe 2MBVRKZ3|j7jC:,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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\F WXP2> K Z3|j"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\F WXP2x?p%rphoenix#XP\  P6QXP#Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold Before the David NicollStaci Pittman 2j lrL Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font footnote textfootnote text;1#&J\  P6Q&P##XP\  P6QXP#footnote referencefootnote reference headerheader` hp x (# (#  (# ` hp x (#2b  rKpage numberpage number footerfooter` hp x (# (#  (# ` hp x (#endnote referenceendnote reference "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddfootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) See, e.g., NYNEX Comments at 16; U S WEST Comments at 1920.  Furthermore, U S WEST agrees with NCTA that every subscriber must arrange for a packager to carry the local broadcast stations, but the subscriber should pay for the local broadcast stations only once.#footnote reference#d?footnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) U S WEST Comments at 1920. d But in contrast to NCTAs position that the shared must carry channels should be administered jointly, U S WEST would have the OVS operator or its designee perform channel administration. As explained above, shared administration is more likely to promote nondiscriminatory access of capacity to programmers.  B.PEG Access  Telephone parties seek flexibility and an absence of regulatory supervision, but they generally do not offer solid commitments as to their statutory PEG access obligations. The Joint Telephone Parties urge that there be no requirement to dedicate entire channels to individual PEG entities,#footnote reference#f@footnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) Joint Telephone Parties at 28 f while U S WEST opposes PEG requirements that could stifle experimentation with new approaches.#footnote reference#aAfootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) U S WEST Comments at 18. a In response, the Commission should adopt a no excuses policy, that makes plain the requirements for PEG access on OVS systems. In addition, the Commission should not adopt a requirement that existing cable operators share channel feeds or other assets with OVS operators. VI.PROGRAM EXCLUSIVITY  NCTA also supported the Acts requirement for the extension of syndicated exclusivity, sports exclusivity and network nonduplication regulations to the OVS environment. We explained that for programming on shared channels, the channel administrator is in the best position to track schedules to determine when the display of particular programming by any of the programmers on the system will violate the exclusivity rights exercised by broadcasters.#footnote reference#]Bfootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) NCTA Comments at 36. ] The channel administrator should, therefore, be in a position to block programming on the shared channels. With respect to exclusive channels, in contrast, the initial responsibility for blocking should be left to the packager leasing the channel, although the actual task of blocking might be performed by the channel administrator for a fee. The parties commenting on this matter recognize that OVS operators and packager/programmers must comply with these program exclusivity requirements. We continue to believe that exclusivity will be most efficiently enforced by a channel administration jointly operated by the programmers taking capacity on the system. VII.CERTIFICATION  NCTAs comments noted that prior to offering service, OVS operators must seek Commission certification that individual proposals comply with the Commissions regulations. The Commission is directed to approve or disapprove certification proposals within ten days of their filing. Recognizing that the ten day period is insufficient to properly evaluate compliance, the Commission suggests, and we heartily endorse, a prefiling procedure under which applicants submit basic information first, and submit the actual certification request only after the staff has found that the prefiled information complies with the regulations. NCTA called for the inclusion of the following prefiled information: Б ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1A demonstration that the operators plan for allocating integrated system costs between telephone service and OVS has been approved by the Commission; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1A demonstration that the operator has either established or intends to establish a separate subsidiary that complies with the Commissions regulations; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1The number of analog and digital channels that the operator proposes to offer when service commences; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1The operators plan for offering twothirds of the activated channels on a nondiscriminatory basis, including an open enrollment procedure that complies with the Commissions procedures; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1The operators proposal, if any, to provide the technical capability for the sharing of channels; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1A demonstration that the operator intends to enter into an agreement for the joint administration of shared channels, including must carry and PEG channels, or for channel administration by a channel administrator collectively chosen by all of the programmers; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1A demonstration that the rates, terms and conditions under which the channel administrator proposes to offer service are just and reasonable, and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1A demonstration that the operator has adopted a procedure whereby, if its telephone affiliate informs customers of the affiliated OVS or video programming service, it will simultaneously and without favor inform customers of competitive alternatives; 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1A demonstration that the operator is either in compliance with, or intends to comply, with Cable Act provisions relating to must carry, PEG access, program access and other matters; and 4` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#4` hp x (#1A demonstration that the operator is in compliance with, or intends to comply with, Commission regulations regarding network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports exclusivity.#footnote reference#]Cfootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) Id. at 3839. ] 4` hp x (#` hp x (# БBy making this preliminary showing, an OVS operator will provide the Commission with the minimum information necessary to establish that it is in compliance with the regulations. Telephone companies see things differently. U S WEST, for example, contends that all the Commission need do is to accept a carriers intent to comply with the statute.#footnote reference#aDfootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) U S WEST Comments at 22. a NYNEX recommends a truncated process in which areas served and must carry/PEG eligibility are identified, and descriptions are provided of the methods by which the operator intends to comply with nondiscrimination and cost allocation requirements.#footnote reference#aEfootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) NYNEX Comments at 2627. a USTA claims that the filing of basic identification information, along with a statement that the operator either complies or intends to comply with the regulations, is all that is necessary.#footnote reference#`Ffootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) USTA Comments at 2021. ` The Joint Telephone Parties oppose a precertification process and claim such a process would violate the statute.#footnote reference#UGfootnote text#XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX ##footnote reference##XZ"Ab"Monotype SorX #` hp x (#` hp x (##&J\  P6Q&P#э)footnote reference) Joint Telephone Parties at 2223.U All of the telephone company comments have two things in common: they emphasize the shortness of the review period once certifications are filed over the Commissions obligation to certify compliance with the regulations. And they attempt to use the short review period to justify an inadequate review. The Commissions task is to certify compliance, and it properly asks whether that task can be accomplished within ten days of filing. The incontestable answer is that the determination of compliance will require a longer period, and the precertification process, including the specific filing requirements that we propose, are the proper way to go about making the compliance determination. ` hp x (#` hp x (# ÑCONCLUSION ` hp x (#` hp x (#  For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should adopt regulations and policies consistent with NCTAs Comments and Reply Comments.   Respectfully submitted,  Daniel L. Brenner Neal M. Goldberg David L. Nicoll ` hp x (#Dp x (#1724 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 7753664 Counsel for the National Cable Television Association, Inc. Dp x (#` hp x (# April 11, 1996