FCC Web Documents citing 76.1505

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1720A1.txt
  • ) CSR 5833 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 15, 2002 Released: July 17, 2002 By the Chief, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC'') filed a complaint against the City of Rice Lake, Wisconsin (the ``City'' or ``Rice Lake'') to obtain clarification of the open video system public, educational and governmental (``PEG'') financial and in-kind contribution requirements of Section 76.1505(d) of the Commission's rules; and (2) obtain an order prohibiting the City from interpreting those contribution requirements in a manner that places CTC at a competitive disadvantage to Charter Communications, Inc. (``Charter''), the incumbent cable television operator serving Rice Lake. The City filed an Answer to the Complaint. Charter filed comments and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2479A1.txt
  • Intent and end ninety days thereafter. 6. Allocation of Cavacin. Pembroke does not expect to experience any capacity constraints on its OVS system. If the aggregate cap city needs of (a) local commercial and non-commercial television stations carried pUTS ant to Section 76.1506 of the Commission's Rules, (b) public, educational and go ernmental (PEG) access channels furnished pursuant to Section 76.1505 of the Comm ssion's Rules, (c) Pembroke and its affiliates, and (d) unaffiliated video programming p oviders exceed the actual capacity of Pembroke's OVS system, then Pembroke and its a liates will not select the video programming services for carriage on more than on -third of the activated channel capacity of the OVS system. If aggregate capacity *eeds exceed actual
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-57A1.txt
  • RICE LAKE, WISCONSIN CSR 5833 CTC Telcom, Inc. (``CTC'') has filed a complaint against the City of Rice Lake, Wisconsin pursuant to Section 76.1513 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1513. CTC is certified to operate an Open Video System in Rice Lake and requests that the Commission provide clarification of the financial and in-kind contribution requirements of Section 76.1505(d) of the Commission's rules regarding public, educational and governmental (``PEG'') access services, facilities and equipment. CTC also requests that the City be prohibited from interpreting and imposing those contributions upon CTC in a discriminatory manner. Pursuant to Section 76.1513(a) of the Commission's rules, OVS complaints must be resolved within 180 days of filing. Rice Lake's answer and any comments and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.txt
  • VI. Need: These rules implement Section 302(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r) and 573. Section Number and Title: 76.1500 Definitions. 76.1501 Qualifications to be an open video system operator. 76.1502 Certification. 76.1503 Carriage of video programming providers on open video systems. 76.1504 Rates, terms and condition of carriage on open video systems. 76.1505 Public, educational and governmental access. 76.1506 Carriage of television broadcast signals. 76.1507 Competitive access to satellite cable programming. 76.1508 Network non-duplication. 76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. 76.1511 Fees. 76.1512 Programming information. 76.1513 Open video dispute resolution. 76.1514 Bundling of video and local exchange services. PART 90 - PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES SUBPART T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-367A1.txt
  • the only wording on this cover sheet shall be "Open Video System Certification Application Comments." This wording shall be located in the center of the page and should be in letters at least 1/2 inch in size. You must also include the words "open video systems" on their mailing envelopes. Finally, please be advised that pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505, CCFL would like to discuss and reach an agreement with you as to its public, educational, and governmental programming obligations. This effort will be pursued separate and apart from the above-described certification and comment proceedings. Sincerely, __________________________________ William McKissock Vice President/General Manager Century Communications of FL, Inc. 1181 S. Rogers Circle, Suite 5 Attachment 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-180A1.txt
  • requires that if an LFA and OVS operator cannot reach an agreement on the OVS operator's PEG obligations, the operator is required to match the incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations and the incumbent cable operator is required to permit the OVS operator to connect with the existing PEG feeds, with such costs borne by the OVS operator. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d). Verizon Comments at 75. See Verizon Comments at 21. See also South Slope Comments at 11; NCTA Comments at 12. Verizon Comments at 83. Verizon Comments at 75. 47 U.S.C. § 522(7)(C). See also Verizon Comments at 82-87. 47 U.S.C. § 522(7)(C). See BellSouth at 42; NATOA Reply at 27-28. 47 U.S.C. § 522(7)(C). 47 U.S.C. § 522(12). See IP-Enabled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-190A1.txt
  • Comments at 21; Anne Arundel Reply Comments at 9. First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5152. See id. at 5152-5153. We note that in the First Report and Order we found that a pro rata cost sharing approach between incumbents and new entrants is per se reasonable. See id. at 5154. In doing so, we also cited Section 76.1505 of the Commission's rules, which requires an open video system operator to match an incumbent cable operator's PEG obligations. Id. at n.396 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d)). Under a matching approach, the open video system operator and incumbent cable operator make equal contributions. In a pro rata cost sharing approach, the new entrant would make PEG contributions based on the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002165.doc
  • service to their communities, or its financial profile and no assurances have been given that the health and safety of residents will not be compromised by BroadbandConnect during any construction operations. Moreover, commenters express concern regarding potential fees to be paid to their cities and Broadband's compliance with public, educational and governmental (``PEG'') access requirements, pursuant to Sections 76.1511 and 76.1505 of the Commission's rules, respectively. Upper Marlboro states that it opposes granting the certification application until representatives of BroadbandConnect meet with town officials, as it has had no prior notice on the specifics of BroadbandConnect's plans to establish an open video system in Upper Marlboro. Finally, the comments of Prince George's County relate to the use of its public rights-of-way.
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • R -- Telecommunications Act Implementation [165]76.1400 Purpose. [166]76.1402 CPST rate complaints. [167]76.1404 Use of cable facilities by local exchange carriers. Subpart S -- Open Video Systems [168]76.1500 Definitions. [169]76.1501 Qualifications to be an open video system operator. [170]76.1502 Certification. [171]76.1503 Carriage of video programming providers on open video systems. [172]76.1504 Rates, terms and conditions for carriage on open video systems. [173]76.1505 Public, educational and governmental access. [174]76.1506 Carriage of television broadcast signals. [175]76.1507 Competitive access to satellite cable programming. [176]76.1508 Network non-duplication. [177]76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. [178]76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. [179]76.1511 Fees. [180]76.1512 Programming information. [181]76.1513 Open video dispute resolution. [182]76.1514 Bundling of video and local exchange services. Subpart T -- Notices [183]76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of broadcast
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • Purpose. § 76.1402 CPST rate complaints. § 76.1404 Use of cable facilities by local exchange carriers. Subpart S-Open Video Systems § 76.1500 Definitions. § 76.1501 Qualifications to be an open video system operator. § 76.1502 Certification. § 76.1503 Carriage of video programming providers on open video systems. § 76.1504 Rates, terms and conditions for carriage on open video systems. § 76.1505 Public, educational and governmental access. § 76.1506 Carriage of television broadcast signals. § 76.1507 Competitive access to satellite cable programming. § 76.1508 Network non-duplication. § 76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. § 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. § 76.1511 Fees. § 76.1512 Programming information. § 76.1513 Open video dispute resolution. § 76.1514 Bundling of video and local exchange services. Subpart
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/dallas.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/dallas.wp
  • not raise these arguments in the rulemaking proceedings. Accordingly, we decline to address these claims.[8]^(8) C. The Commission's Failure To Authorize Local Governments To Require OVS Operators To Provide Institutional Networks. The Commission's rules require an OVS operator to provide capacity on an institutional network[9]^(9) only if the operator has voluntarily elected to build such a network. See 47 C.F.R. 76.1505(e) (1997). If the OVS operator has not elected to build an institutional network, the rules do not give local governments authority to require construction of such a network. Id. NATOA contends that the agency acted contrary to the statute in failing to authorize local governments to demand that OVS operators provide institutional networks. This argument rests on a misreading of