the
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Construct and Operate Channel
Facilities for
Rendition
of CATV Channel Service at Rome, Ga.
File No. P-C-7103
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
16 F.C.C.2d 491 (1968); 15
Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 755
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 68-1152
November 26, 1968 Adopted
BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER BARTLEY ABSTAINED FROM VOTING; COMMISSIONER
COX CONCURRED AND ISSUED A STATEMENT; COMMISSIONER WADSWORTH WAS ABSENT; COMMISSION JOHNSON DISSENTED AND ISSUED A STATEMENT;
COMMISSIONER H. REX LEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE.
[*491] 1. The Commission having under consideration the
above captioned application for authority to continue operation of its
facilities presently providing CATV channel service to Rome TV Cable Co., Inc.,
at Rome, Ga., and for authority to extend and operate such facilities to other
areas of Rome, Ga.;
2. It appearing, That the filing of the application has complied
with the requirements of part 63 of the Commission's rules; the pertinent parts
of the stayed decision of the Commission in docket 17333, which was released
June 26, 1968; and the Commission's published interim procedures concerning
such applications;
3. It further appearing, That no protests have been filed against
the grant of the application for facilities used to deliver nine out-of-town
television stations (seven non-educational and two educational) to the CATV
system at Rome;
4. It is hereby certified, That the continued operation and
expansion of the CATV channel service facilities as set forth in the
aforementioned application is in the public interest, convenience, and
necessity;
5. Accordingly, It is ordered, That authority is hereby granted
for the construction and operation of the facilities specifically described in
said application; the construction and operation of the facilities specifically
described in said application;
6. It is further ordered, That no service other than the CATV
channel service described in said application shall be furnished by applicant
over the facilities authorized herein without prior authorization by the
Commission.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
[*492] CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KENNETH A. COX
I concur fully in the action granting the application of Southern Bell
Telephone & Telegraph Co., for authority to construct and operate CATV
channel facilities to serve a non-affiliated customer in Rome, Ga. This
statement is intended as a response to the dissenting opinion of Commissioner
Johnson.
I agree, of course, that the issues facing us in connection with cable
television are important and require our early and creful consideration.
I also agree that at some time in the future the CATV industry may develop in
such a way that we will have to consider whether it should be subjected to
common carrier regulation. For the present, however, I think the actual
conduct of the business of distributing television signals by cable to
subscribers for a monthly fee is not a common carrier activity, and the
Commission has so held. See Frontier Broadcasting Co. v. Collier, 24
F.C.C. 251; Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., 1 F.C.C. 2d
765, aff'd. 123 U.S. App. D.C. 298, 359 F. ed., 282; United States v.
Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 169. As cable television is now
conducted, the cable operator selects the programs which are relayed to his
subscribers, and neither the latter nor the proprietors of the stations whose
signals are carried have hired the cable facilities for the purpose of the
transmission of intelligence which they originate. I therefore think that
the present nature of the industry simply does not fit the common carrier
pattern, though I believe that cable service may well be a utility which should
be regulated as such.
As I have indicated on a number of occasions -- most recently in a speech
to the convention of the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners on November 13th -- I believe that at some future time cable
operations may evolve in such a way that it will be necessary and desirable to
treat them as common carrier operations. But I do not think we really
have the option now of deciding that cable operations should be forced into the
common carrier mold, since I see no way in which we could require the various
parties concerned to adjust their relationships so as to fit common carrier
concepts. Nor do I see any immediate need to do so. Even if cable
operators make otherwise unoccupied channels available to others for the
dissemination of program matter -- as is proposed in our latest notice of
inquiry and proposed rulemaking as to CATV matters (F.C.C.-1176), such common
carrier functions would represent only a small part of the cable service.
While some common carrier concepts would have to be made applicable, this would
fall far short of full common carrier regulation. I do not see how our
action here can "substantially inhibit our future flexibility" in
dealing with such developments.
Cable television has developed to this point in three general
forms. The earliest, and still the most common, involves the private
entrepreneur who decides to go into the cable business, gets a local franchise
to do so, arranges with the local telephone or power company for space on its
poles, and then either constructs, or arranges for the construction of, his own
complete system consisting of head-end equipment, feeder and distribution
cables, and droplines to subscribers' homes. The [*493] second
form involves the same private entrepreneur, but in this case he may or may not
have a local franchise and, instead of arranging to build his own physical
facilities, he goes to the local telephone company and asks it to construct
channel facilities for him. As suggested, this may obviate the need for a
franchise since the telephone company already has one, and this approach also
substitutes a channel leasing arrangement for the pole line attachment
agreement involved in the first form. In some cases, the cable operator
constructs his own headend facility and simply arranges for the telephone
company to construct distribution lines; in others, the telephone company
constructs the entire facility, and other variations are possible. The
third form is very like the second, except that instead of the independent
entrepreneur, an independent telephone company may establish a cable subsidiary
or other related entity and then agree to construct and lease channel
facilities to the latter so that it can engage in the non-common carrier
business of selling a television signal distribution service.
The Commission ruled some 2 years ago that, while CATV operations do
not constitute common carriage, the furnishing by telephone companies of
channels of communications to CATV operators is a common carrier
undertaking. We therefore required telephone companies to file tariffs
covering the provision of such service. See Common Carrier Tariffs for
CATV Systems, 4 F.C.C. 2d 257, 260. And we held in General Telephone Co., of
California et al., 13 F.C.C. 2d 448, that the provision of such channel service
is an interstate common carriage service and that, therefore, telephone
companies must obtain section 214 authorization from us before constructing
facilities to provide this service.
That is precisely what Southern Bell has done here. Rome Cable
Television Co., Inc., got a franchise from the city of Rome on December 19,
1966, to provide cable service in that community. On June 16, 1967, it
ordered channel facility service from Southern Bell, having indicated in an
earlier letter that "we place ourselves in Southern Bell's hands in this
vital matter, because of the planning, engineering, construction, and
maintenance capabilities of your organization." On October 26, 1967, Rome
Cable started service with the lines which had then been constructed, adding
service thereafter as additional stages of construction were completed.
When we issued our decision in the General Telephone case, supra, Southern Bell
was faced with the necessity of applying for section 214 authorization both for
the facilities already constructed -- the head-end facility, 21.7 miles of
feeder cable, and 71.9 miles of distribution cable -- and for authority to
construct 24.7 miles of planned feeder cable and 116.2 miles of planned
distribution cable. Southern Bell did so file on July 31, 1968 and, in
view of the stay of our General Telephone decision which we granted (14 F.C.C.
2d 170), it proceeded properly in accordance with paragraph 34 of our initial
section 214 decision. However, on August 9, 1968, we specified interim
procedures to govern these matters, and these required more information than
had been supplied in the initial filing. Southern Bell therefore filed an
amended application on September 20, 1968. It notified the city of Rome
of this filing, and the Commission sent copies to the Governor of Georgia, to
the Department of Defense, and to the National Cable Television Association.
[*494] In some of our earlier orders and decisions in this
area, we had indicated that our primary concerns -- aside from the fundamental
question of whether we have section 214 jurisdiction over telephone companies'
provision of CATV channel facilities -- involved situations in which the
telephone company was doing business with its own subsidiary or another related
entity or in which there were a number of parties interested in providing cable
service, and one of them had gone to the telephone company while the others
were applying for local franchises to enable them to construct their own
facilities. Cases in the former category involve a danger that the
telephone company may favor its subsidiary or related company and unfairly
shift costs attributable to the cable operation to the users of other telephone
services. The second category involves the risks that the telephone
company may harass those cable aspirants who have not chosen to take channel
service from the company by delaying negotiation of pole line agreements, by
exacting unreasonable charges for such attachments, or by imposing unreasonable
conditions on the cable operator.
It has been alleged in some cases that a telephone company has so
delayed entry of an independent operator that it has given an unfair head start
to its own channel service customer. The action we have now taken in
granting Southern Bell's application for Rome and in delegating authority to
the Chief of our Common Carrier Bureau to grant similar applications does not
affect these two categories of troublesome cases. Those situations are to
be presented to us and will be disposed of on a case by case basis after
consideration of the relevant facts in each instance.
I object to Commissioner Johnson's reference to "one of the
Commission's corporate clients." I do not regard Southern Bell as a client
of the Commission, nor do I think my colleagues do so. It is a regulated
carrier, many of whose operations are subject to our jurisdiction and upon
whose applications we are required to pass. I agree with the positions of
the telephone industry in some cases, and disagree strongly in others.
This Commission grants hundreds of applications by the Bell System and other
telephone companies for construction of facilities subject to our
jurisdiction. Since the Rome application does not fall within either of
the two troublesome categories referred to above, since it complies with our
interim procedures and policies, since it presents no problems on its face, and
since no objections have been filed against it, it is my best judgment that the
application should be granted.
I find nothing in Commissioner Johnson's dissent to change that
opinion. He states that the matter was brought to the Commission "in
a spirit of great urgency without even coordinating with the other interested
bureaus -- let alone giving the public an opportunity to be heard." It is
true that the matter was first placed on our agenda without coordination with
the CATV task force or other bureaus, but the chief of the task force was
alerted to this and was advised that the matter could be passed over for
consideration at a later meeting if he so desired. It was passed over 1
week and he did file a memorandum setting forth his views which was considered
by the Commission before granting the application. While Commissioner
Johnson still feels the matter "has not been fully investigated, discussed
or argued before the Commission," it was given more consideration than we
are able to devote to many items of business. So far as I can tell,
[*495] Commissioner Johnson was afforded an opportunity to present his views,
and I do not believe he advanced any grounds requiring further
investigation. The urgency arose from the fact that 5 months had then
elapsed since our decision in the General Telephone case and we had accumulated
a substantial backlog of section 214 applications. Orderly discharge of
our business requires that they be disposed of as quickly as possible. In
addition, in some cases we had been advised that matters were especially
pressing. Rome Cable's franchise is exclusive only until March 13,
1969. Both it and the city government have been receiving complaints from
residents in those parts of Rome which have not yet received service because
our ruling interrupted construction. The public was given as much
opportunity to be heard as is ever afforded in connection with telephone
construction applications -- in addition to the notice referred to above, this
application was placed on Commission public notice which was released to the
press. While it is true that the full gamut of all the conceivable policy
issues surrounding the question of whether cable television should eventually
be treated as a common carrier service have not been discussed, as indicated
above, I believe the facts as to this application were fully and completely
considered. In addition, I have since examined the file on the matter and
find no basis for further investigation.
Commissioner Johnson's first basic ground for dissent is that the
regards this as another instance in which the Commission is "making
decisions with immense future impact on our society without the slightest
information or consideration as to where we are going or what we are trying to
achieve." I do not think this is true. We have not, of course,
decided in detail what we think the communications system of this country may,
or should, be at some specified future date, and where precisely cable television
should fit into the overall picture. I agree that we should give careful
attention to such long range questions, but I do not think that in the meantime
we should suspend processing applications which we have invited. I have
not approached this matter in an effort to determine "what the FCC can do
for the telephone company" but rather in terms of whether Southern Bell
has complied with our section 214 ruling and with our announced interim
policies, and whether the application seems fair on its face and is unopposed.
When we have decided that the telephone company should be doing something for
the country which it is not now doing, I will then be quite prepared to require
it to take steps to meet the deficiency.
I think Commissioner Johnson's reference to possible impact of this
action on the development of picturephone service is not really relevant.
I think the Bell System has a substantial investment in the development of such
a service, and that it will go ahead with its plans to initiate it, by degrees,
as it finds public demand for such a service. The company has been
pursuing these plans at the same time it was building channel facilities for
cable operators, so it apparently sees no inconsistency between the development
of a two-way capability for picturephone and a one-way capability for
distribution of television signals. It seems to me quite likely that even
the latter will eventually evolve into a two-way capacity, so I really think
Commissioner Johnson's concern here is baseless.
[*496] I also disagree with Commissioner Johnson's second
area of concern. In some situations I have joined him in expressing the
belief that the Commission was not properly considering the public interest,
either on its own initiative or when requested to do so by individual members
of the public or by organized groups. But I don't see the applicability
of this concern here. I don't think it requires any great courage or
foolhardiness -- although it may involve expense -- for an individual to
challenge a particular applicant. Indeed, we have a number of cases in
which parties have done just that in connection with telephone company
applications for construction of CATV channel facilities. I think that
when anyone files an application in accordance with the rules and policies of
the Commission, and due notice of such filing is given, we have to proceed to
dispose of the matter on the basis of the application alone if no one advises
us that there is something wrong. Here Rome Cable ordered service from
Southern Bell, to be provided under a tariff of a kind the Commission required
the company to file with us. We have not yet considered the terms of that
tariff, but are prepared to hear any complaint that anyone who feels that it is
unfair may wish to make. In all other areas of telephone service we do
assume -- and I think correctly -- that the construction by a telephone company
of facilities to meet public demand, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, is in the public interest. I think it is sound policy to
proceed on the same basis in handling properly filed applications for
authorization to construct CATV channel facilities.
It is true that the question of our section 214 jurisdiction was
originally a part of an overall proceeding which was also designed to consider
alleged abuses in the cable field by telephone companies. The basic
question of jurisdiction was taken out of that case and given expedited
treatment. The other charges will be considered in due course in regular
hearings. If in those cases, or in others not yet instituted, we find
defects in the tariffs the telephone companies have filed to cover this
service, we will have full authority to require necessary modification.
I think Commissioner Johnson exaggerates the telephone company's power
"to see to it that no one ever complains in the future to this
Commission." While I recognize that the Bell System and the telephone
industry in general are large and powerful business entities, and that this
carries with it a degree of political influence and of economic power over the
actions of others, I do not think that we are anywhere near the point where
individuals feel they cannot complain to the Commission or that such complaints
will not receive proper consideration.
Nor can I agree that we have not indicated standards to be applied by
the Common Carrier Bureau in handling other section 214 applications. We
have concurred in their recommendation that they should bring to us all those
cases in which a telephone company is doing business with a cable subsidiary or
other related entity and all those in which there is complaint or dispute about
provision of cable service in a community. n1 We
have told the Bureau to grant only those remaining [*497]
applications which comply with our interim policies and which, on their face,
seem sound and in compliance with our decision in the General Telephone case.
n1 In my opinion, they should also make
special inquiry in those cases where they are informed that other parties had
at one time sought to build their own cable facilities, to be certain that
their withdrawal was not occasioned by improper activities of a telephone
company.
Commissioner Johnson makes the point that a common carrier offering is supposed
to be available to anyone who can pay for it, and asks "can anyone believe
that, in the community of Rome, Ga., the Bell Co. will now stand ready to lay
duplicating cable systems to every person who would establish one?" He
also asks whether such a course would be desirable. I think the latter
question does raise substantial issues. However, Southern Bell can be
required to construct facilities for anyone who wishes to enter into
competition with Rome Cable, since it has offered this service to the public
generally. I agree that it is not likely that a second, duplicating
system will be built in Rome; however, it is not common for two nontelephone
systems to be built in the same area. This does not turn on whether the
system is constructed by a telephone company or by a private cable
entrepreneur, but is simply a reflection of the economics of the cable business
in its present form. If anyone should decide to build a second system in
Rome, I expect that Southern Bell's tariff would insure that other users of
telephone service would not be burdened by the provision of additional channel
facilities. I do not think that the likelihood of competition in
providing cable television in Rome turns on whether Southern Bell is authorized
to construct the balance of the system originally ordered by Rome Cable.
Commissioner Johnson asks the rhetorical question "Does anyone
really know what is going on at the FCC?" I would certainly not want to
say that I know all that is going on at all stages in connection with the very
complex responsibilities of this agency. However, I think I know what was
involved in Southern Bell's application in Rome, and that I know enough about
the present and future relationship between the telephone and cable industries
to make the judgment that this application should be granted.
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON
The issues surrounding the future growth and development of the cable
television industry are among the most significant communication policy questions
now confronting the country and this Commission.
One of the central issues is the extent to which cable television
distribution should be treated as a common carrier activity. Should the
public be accorded rate and quality-of-service protection from what appears to
be essentially a monopoly service -- protection characteristic of government
regulation of public utilities? Should cable television channels be made
available to all potential program originators willing to pay the leasing
charge (as telephone service is now made available), or should the operator of
the system be in the position to determine all the information that the
citizens of a given community can obtain (or by precluded from obtaining) by
cable? Should such services be offered (a) only by the telephone company,
(b) only by companies other than the telephone company, or (c) in a competitive
environment in which private entrepreneurs must compete with the
telephone [*498] companies at the same time they are doing business
with them (through pole attachment agreements, and so forth)?
These issues have been addressed by New York City Mayor John Lindsay's
Advisory Task Force on CATV and Telecommunications, a report on cable
television and cable telecommunications in New York City, and are among those
considered by the President's Communications Policy Task Force. (Weekly
Compilation of Presidential Documents, Aug. 21, 1967, pp. 1146-54.) They have
been the subject of study by numerous research and academic institutions.
They have even been raised by the FCC majority in the recent proposed
rulemaking regarding cable television adopted December 12, 1968. F.C.C.
68-1176.
They have not -- as today's decision makes clear -- been fully and
appropriately addressed by this Commission in today's majority action by three
of the seven Commissioners. n1 The
Commission has today simply concluded that the telephone company can build, own
and lease a CATV system in all instances in which no one formally protests to
the FCC. The matter was brought to the Commission by the Common Carrier
Bureau in a spirit of great urgency, without even coordinating with the other
interested bureaus -- let alone giving the public an opportunity to be
heard. It has not been full investigated, discussed or argued before the
Commission -- a fact not altered by the weeklong delay to hear from the chief
of the CATV task force. *
n1 Commissioner Cox has now drafted a
characteristically thoughtful and constructive effort to explain at least his
own rationale for this decision. I do not find it, however, altogether
persuasive. For example, he says:
"I believe that at some future time
cable operations may evolve in such a way that it will be necessary and
desirable to treat them as common carrier operations. But I do not think
we really have the option now of deciding that cable operations should be
forced into the common carrier mold. * * *"
I do not urge that cable operations be forced into the common carrier,
or any other, mold. I do urge that this Commission has an obligation to
examine the public interest factors involved in cable operations, and propose
whatever procedures and protections we think most appropriately fit the
situation. If, however, a majority of this commission believes that it
will be necessary and desirable to treat cable operations as common carrier
activity at some future time, then I think we have an affirmative obligation to
evaluate what we are doing today in light of its impact upon our capacity to
take such a step in the future. And I believe that, whatever we may think
or say we are doing, the practical impact is to substantially inhibit our
future flexibility in dealing with issues now before us in other
proceedings. As even Commissioner Cox concedes, in classic
understatement, "it is true that the full gamut of all the conceivable
policy issues surrounding the question of whether cable television should
eventually be treated as a common carrier service have not been
discussed. * * *"
* Hurriedly brought to the Commission on Nov. 20, 1968, promptly
disposed of Nov. 26, with public release on Nov. 27, I am now startled to
discover the Bureau inexplicably held the sec. 214 authorization while
Commissioner Cox and I leisurely concluded our exchange of views this, the week
of Feb. 10, 1969.
My first concern arises out of my repeated observation that this
Commission continues to persist in making decisions with immense future impact
on our society without the slightest information or consideration as to where
we are going or what we are trying to achieve. The questions before us
are ones of policy -- and the answers we give will substantially determine our
Nation's communications systems for decades. And yet we are addressing
the issues before us in the most legalistic, narrowly-conceived, decisionmaking
framework imaginable. We have available to us little more than the
information Bell wants us to have. We have little or no idea of the
long-range effect of our decision. As one small example that pales in
insignificance compared to the questions of media content control, what is the
impact of our decision upon Bell's Picturephone? We are now being exposed to a
national campaign of ATT advertising (paid for by telephone subscribers)
[*499] advising that ATT now stands for the "Anywhere anyTime
anyThing network." Yet suppose that ATT and the other telephone companies
gain substantial investment in the one-way multichannel systems of cable
television. Will this investment have no impact on Bell's incentive to
innovate with the two-way video of Picturephone?
A second area which concerns me is our extension of the principle that
this Commission will only be forced into considering the public interest when a
citizen gets up enough courage, or is so foolhardy, as to challenge one of the
Commission's corporate clients. The telephone company is apparently to be
presumed to be operating in the public interest, and to be given whatever it
wants, unless someone complains. n2 I
believe we should ask not what the FCC can do for the telephone company, but
what the telephone company can do for our country. And yet the FCC's
rather peculiar and contrary doctrine is now to be extended to the
telephone/CATV field -- despite the fact that the very proceeding in which we
asserted section 214 jurisdiction over telephone company construction began in
order to examine charges of tariff abuse by the very telephone companies that
are now to be given carte blanche. n3
These abuses -- which, if true, could lead to substantial revisions in the
tariffs if not the outright declaration of their per se unlawfulness -- are now
to languish in a proceeding before a hearing examiner with no prospect that it
will reach the Commission in the relevant future. If Bell is to be
allowed to compete with other private entrepreneurs, surely the recent FCC
regulatory history has demonstrated a need to insure that the competitive
environment is fair to all parties -- especially to anyone who would dare
challenge Bell. Needless to say, by this action the FCC gives the
telephone company every incentive to see to it that no one ever complains in
the future to this Commission. Presumably Bell by now enjoys sufficient
political and economic power to effect that end in most cases.
n2 As Commissioner Cox says in his
separate opinion:
"[We] * * * assume * * * that the
construction by a telephone company of facilities to meet public demand, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, is in the public interest."
But from where, one might ask, do we
expect such evidence to come -- the telephone company? He goes on to say
that:
"[When] anyone files an application
in accordance with the rules and policies of the Commission, and due notice of
such filing is given, we have to proceed to dispose of the matter on the basis
of the application alone if no one advises us that there is something
wrong."
In one sense, of course, he is
right. We must act upon the papers presented to us by parties outside the
Commission. If only the applicant files an application or statement that
is all that is before us. But the Communications Act is very clear in its
injunction that those of us on this Commission must make our own investigation
and judgment of what serves the "public interest" -- independent of
whether anyone comes in from the outside to urge it or not. Indeed,
Commissioner Cox has often recognized, as he says, that "in some
situations * * * the Commission was not properly considering the public
interest * * * on its own initiative. * * * " I believe this is such
a situation. He disagrees.
n3 But for today's decision one would
have assumed that the Commission had urged its section 214 authority on the
assumption there were to be some section 214 applications it would not
approve. That now appears not to be the case.
Meanwhile, back in Rome, Ga., the Southern Bell Telephone Co., can now
go ahead, with FCC imprimatur, and construct the Rome CATV system.
One big issue in the Rome case is whether the Commission can issue a
section 214 certificate before settling the question of whether a leaseback is
a common carrier activity. The tariff that is filed is often a
codification of negotiations under way between the telephone company
[*500] and a prospective CATV operator. Since, generally, only one
person can take advantage of the tariff, what kind of common carrier
undertaking is that? (Can anyone believe that, in the community of Rome,
Ga., the Bell Company will now stand ready to lay duplicating cable systems for
every person who would establish one? Would that be desirable, in view of
the wastage of facilities, and the complexity of Federal-State-local relations
in the regulation of cable systems?) And some of the remaining issues in the
214 proceeding as well as the Commission's CATV rulemaking concern the nature
of this common carrier offering.
The Rome action is also unfortunate in that it tends to undercut the
Commission's early 214 decision. For, by today's decision, the Commission
is authorizing the granting of a certificate to cover a flagrant case of
uncertificated construction. A routine grant of this application largely
nullifies the grandfather provision established by the 214 decision. That
decision stated that facilities built after October 21, 1966 were built with
knowledge by the phone companies of their possible unlawfulness, and thus no
equities would attach because of money spent after that date. The Rome
facilities were all built after this cutoff date -- but no real effort is made
to reconcile this fact with the grandfather provisions. The Rome decision
is, thus, precedent for the grant of almost any application.
We tell our Common Carrier Bureau to grant all other section 214
applications for which there are no protests -- as the Bureau has asked us to
do -- without any meaningful enunciation of the standards it is to apply in
doing so, and without the institution of even the most elementary management
information reporting system for following up and reporting back to the
Commission what is subsequently done by the Bureau under this new-found
delegated power. A common carrier offering is to be available to anyone
who can pay for it.
The Common Carrier Bureau will grant the 214 applications as fast as it
can. Because of the nature of its traditional clientele (ATT), it is not
accustomed to receiving applications in large numbers, and the backlogging of
requests is already building up. As a result, it has taken to putting out
orders that provide:
[This] authorization is not to be construed to relieve applicant's
customers * * * from compliance with the requirements of part 74, subpart K, of
the Commission's rules, or any rules that may be promulgated by the Commission
in docket No. 18397, or any Commission order that may be issued pursuant to
part 74, subpart K, of the Commission's rules and regulations.
(See, e.g., Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Virginia, File
No. P-C-7112, released Dec. 30, 1968.) This is an old bureaucratic dodge.
It results in construction being completed and service locked in without regard
to whether it fits any rational overall CATV scheme.
Does anyone really know what is going on at the FCC? If so, the
evidence is not readily apparent. I must regretfully dissent.