Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of:                | *  | CSR 5833                     |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| CTC Telcom, Inc.                 | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| v\.                              | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| City of Rice Lake, Wisconsin     | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Complaint to Resolve an Open     | *  |                              |
| Video System Dispute Regarding   | *) |                              |
| Financial and In-Kind            | ** |                              |
| Contributions Towards Public,    |    |                              |
| Educational and Governmental     | *  |                              |
| Access Services, Facilities and  | *) |                              |
| Equipment                        | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: July 15, 2002 Released: July 17, 2002**

By the Chief, Media Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  CTC Telcom, Inc. ("CTC") filed a complaint[^1] against the City of
    Rice Lake, Wisconsin (the "City" or "Rice Lake") to obtain
    clarification of the open video system[^2] 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 and
    the Alliance for Community Media jointly filed comments. CTC filed a
    Reply.

# background

2.  In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"), Congress set
    forth four means by which common carriers may enter the video
    programming marketplace: (1) radio-based systems; (2) common
    carriage of video traffic; (3) cable systems; and (4) open video
    systems.[^3] In rulemakings implementing open video system
    regulations,[^4] the Commission concluded that Congress did not
    intend to restrict open video system service to telephone companies
    alone, and permitted non-local exchange carriers and cable operators
    to operate open video systems and to obtain carriage on such systems
    where "consistent with the public interest, convenience, and
    necessity...."[^5] The Commission stated that the open video system
    model "can provide the competitive benefits that Congress sought to
    achieve: market entry by new service providers, enhanced
    competition, streamlined regulation, investment in infrastructure
    and technology, diversity of programming choices and increased
    consumer choice."[^6] The United States Court of Appeals for the
    Fifth Circuit considered consolidated appeals of the Commission's
    open video system rules -- affirming in part, reversing in part, and
    remanding in part those rules.[^7]

3.  Although generally enjoying more streamlined regulation than
    operators of cable systems, open video system operators are subject
    to clearly defined obligations. One of these obligations is the
    requirement that open video systems satisfy PEG obligations that are
    no greater or lesser than the PEG obligations of cable
    operators.[^8]

# DISCUSSION

## The Pleadings

4.  CTC is a Wisconsin corporation that operates an open video system in
    Rice Lake, Wisconsin.[^9] CTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
    Chibardun Telephone Cooperative, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation that
    maintains its principal office at the same location as CTC.[^10] CTC
    and Chibardun are small, regional telecommunications companies
    located in northwestern Wisconsin that together employ approximately
    70 people.[^11] As of November 1, 2001, CTC had 246 open video
    system subscribers in Rice Lake. Charter, the incumbent cable
    television operator in Rice Lake, had approximately 3,500
    subscribers as of November 1, 2001.[^12] CTC states that it
    initially planned to serve Rice Lake as a cable television operator.
    After encountering delays in the cable franchising process, CTC
    states that it decided to pursue the open video system option.[^13]
    CTC asserts that on June 16, 2000, it was granted certification by
    the Commission, pursuant to Section 76.1502 of the Commission's
    rules, to operate an open video system in Rice Lake.[^14]

5.  In preparing to launch its open video system service in Rice Lake,
    CTC states that it expended \$31,927.45 to connect its system to
    Charter's PEG access channel feed.[^15] CTC argues that pursuant to
    Section 76.1505(d)(4) it is permitted to count these connection
    costs as an offset against its matching financial contributions
    required by Section 76.1505. CTC states that the City's Cable
    Director requested that CTC spread the deductions over a period of
    years rather than deducting them from its initial capital grant
    payments.[^16] After CTC expressed its reluctance to spread out its
    Section 76.1505(d)(4) deduction, CTC states that the City's Cable
    Director informed it that Charter had made certain in-kind
    contributions during 2000 and notified CTC that it would be required
    to make an additional payment of \$28,528.98 in cash to match
    Charter's in-kind contributions.[^17] CTC asserts that this figure
    is extremely close to the \$31,927.45 connection expenditure that
    CTC had planned to offset against its capital grant
    obligations.[^18] CTC asserts that the Charter franchise contains no
    reference to origination points as in-kind contributions and that
    the City decided that the origination points were in-kind
    contributions only after CTC began crediting the costs it had
    incurred to connect to the PEG access channel feed to offset its
    capital grants, as permitted by Section 76.1505(d)(4) of the
    Commission's rules.[^19] CTC argues that it was given no prior
    notice of Charter's in-kind contributions, nor any opportunity to
    negotiate agreeable terms with Charter or the City regarding the
    need for, nature or valuation of in-kind contributions.[^20] CTC
    also states that Charter's in-kind contributions were made, at least
    in part, in years before CTC commenced its Rice Lake open video
    system operations.[^21]

6.  CTC states that the City's Cable Director indicated that CTC was
    expected to match the full amount of Charter's capital grant and any
    additional capital grants in succeeding years.[^22] Specifically,
    CTC asserts that the Cable Director demanded that CTC match
    Charter's capital grant of \$5,821.20 per year, plus an additional
    Charter capital grant of \$5,821.20 per year.[^23] CTC argues that
    the capital grant demands are wholly discriminatory and will render
    it extremely difficult for CTC to offer effective competition to
    Charter in Rice Lake.[^24] CTC also argues that the initial and
    second Charter capital grants were negotiated with Charter, and
    adopted by the City on the basis of per-subscriber formulas that
    were designed for ready pass-through to Charter subscribers on their
    monthly bills. CTC asserts that it cannot pass-through these amounts
    to subscribers without placing CTC at a major price
    disadvantage.[^25] In addition, CTC argues that, although the City
    claims that Charter must meet its "Capital Grant Floor" payment
    requirement regardless of the number of subscribers it has, the
    Charter franchise permits waiver of the "Capital Grant Floor" if
    Charter loses a significant number of subscribers to a
    competitor.[^26] CTC argues that Section 653(c)(2)(B) expressly
    provides that the rate at which franchise fees are imposed on the
    open video system operator shall not exceed the rate at which such
    fees are imposed on any cable operator in the franchise area.[^27]
    CTC states that it is willing to pay the same per-subscriber capital
    grants and additional capital grants as Charter but cannot
    effectively compete with Charter in Rice Lake if it must pay exactly
    the same dollar amounts as Charter when CTC's subscriber base is
    significantly less than the size of Charter's subscriber base.[^28]

7.  CTC argues that the City has disregarded its Section 76.1505(c)
    obligation to engage in bona fide negotiations with CTC regarding
    PEG financing, and has refused to consider the reasonable and
    equitable PEG financing arrangement proposed by CTC.[^29] CTC states
    that it tried to settle the PEG financing dispute with the City by
    agreeing to comply with the City's demands that it match Charter's
    capital grant payments on a dollar-for-dollar basis during the
    present ten-year Charter franchise term.[^30] CTC also notes that it
    proposed eliminating the balance of its connection credit by the
    offset of the Charter in-kind contribution.[^31] In return, CTC
    indicates that it asked the City to agree to not increase further
    the amounts of the Charter capital grants required to be matched by
    CTC; and not to accept additional in-kind contributions from Charter
    for which it would demand the payment of the monetary equivalent
    from CTC.[^32] CTC points out that on November 26, 2001, the City's
    Cable Commission rejected the settlement proposed by CTC.[^33] CTC
    states that instead of negotiation, the City has relied on the
    Section 76.1505(d) default mechanism, and has demanded that CTC
    match, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, the capital grants and in-kind
    contributions of Charter.[^34] Moreover, CTC contends that the
    City's approach regarding negotiating PEG capital grants and in-kind
    PEG contributions with the incumbent cable operator and then
    imposing equal dollar obligations upon the small open video system
    provider clearly leads to the preclusion of open video system
    competitors.[^35] CTC further argues that the City's claim that it
    can refuse to negotiate or consider anything other than imposing the
    same aggregate PEG financial obligations upon CTC as it negotiated
    with Charter will render the Section 653 open video system option
    dead for entities smaller than Regional Bell Operating
    Companies.[^36]

8.  In its Answer, the City argues that CTC's request is contrary to
    Section 76.1505(d)(1) of the Commission's rules.[^37] The City
    points out that Section 76.1501(d)(1) provides that the open video
    system operator must satisfy the same PEG access obligations as the
    local cable operator by matching the local cable operator's annual
    financial contributions towards PEG access services, facilities and
    equipment.[^38] Rice Lake indicates that the Charter and Rice Lake
    Franchise Agreement establishes certain floor amounts that Charter
    must pay to Rice Lake regardless of the number of subscribers
    Charter has and that CTC must match the capital grant floor amounts
    to comply with the Commission's rules and its statutory PEG access
    obligations.[^39] Rice Lake asserts that CTC representatives knew
    of, and participated in, the negotiations that led to the Charter
    Franchise Agreement and were specifically aware of the capital grant
    requirements.[^40] Regarding in-kind contributions, the City asserts
    that Section 76.1505(d)(1) sets forth a default mechanism that
    requires the open video system operator to pay the franchise
    authority the monetary equivalent of the local cable operator's
    depreciated in-kind contribution.[^41] Rice Lake states that it
    established that the depreciated value of Charter's in-kind
    contribution (*i.e.* the cost to establish the four origination
    points so that live programming could be aired from each point) was
    \$28,528.98 and that CTC is required to pay the monetary equivalent
    of this amount.[^42] However in this case, Rice Lake notes that
    instead of insisting on cash payments it granted CTC's request and
    allowed CTC to deduct the depreciated value of a digitizer CTC
    installed for PEG access purposes.[^43] Rice Lake asserts that it
    has in good faith spent many months trying to negotiate the
    requirements with CTC even though Rice Lake was not required to do
    so.[^44]

9.  The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and The
    Alliance for Community Media filed joint comments opposing the
    complaint filed by CTC against Rice Lake.[^45] These parties argue
    that the Commission has squarely rejected the position that CTC is
    advancing and reiterate that the open video system operators\'
    obligation is to match, rather than share, the annual PEG access
    financial contributions of the local cable operator.[^46] In its
    comments, Charter asserts that for PEG support contributions open
    video system operators are required, absent an agreement with the
    local franchising authority, to satisfy the same financial PEG
    access obligations as the local cable operator.[^47] Similarly,
    regarding in-kind equipment grants, Charter asserts that the
    Commission stated that precise duplication of equipment would be
    inappropriate, so the open video system operator will, at a minimum,
    be required to pay the local franchising authority the monetary
    equivalent of the depreciated in-kind contribution, or in the case
    of facilities, the annual amortization value.[^48] Charter indicates
    that the Commission already has addressed CTC's request by rejecting
    the idea of sharing support based on the number of subscribers and
    adopted the requirement that, in the absence of a negotiated
    agreement, the cable operator's burden be met exactly.[^49]

## Analysis

10. Section 653(c)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that any PEG
    requirement that applies to cable operators under Section 611 shall
    apply to open video system operators.[^50] Generally, Section 611
    permits a local cable franchising authority to require that a cable
    operator designate channel capacity for public, educational, and
    governmental use.[^51] Under this statutory provision, a franchising
    authority may require, as part of a local cable franchise, or as
    part of a cable operator's proposal for a franchise renewal, that
    channel capacity be designated for PEG use, and that capacity on
    institutional networks can be designated for educational or
    governmental use.[^52] The franchising authority is allowed to
    mandate and enforce franchise requirements for services, facilities,
    or equipment related to PEG use of channel capacity.[^53] In
    adopting rules to implement open video system PEG requirements,
    Congress instructed the Commission to "impose obligations that are
    no greater or lesser than the obligations. . . ." imposed upon cable
    operators.[^54]

11. Open video system operators should, in the first instance, be
    permitted to negotiate their PEG access obligations with the
    relevant local franchising authority and, if the parties so desire,
    the local cable operator.[^55] Indeed, negotiated solutions
    regarding an open video system's PEG obligations can lead to the
    most equitable and pro-competitive result, particularly where there
    is a pronounced difference between the size of the incumbent cable
    operator and the open video system operator. For example, local
    jurisdictions might place an inordinate burden on new entrants,
    thereby discouraging competitive entry, if they simply were to
    require open video system operators to match the contribution of the
    incumbent dominant cable operator in every case. Nonetheless, where
    negotiations fail, our rules are clear -- the open video system
    operator must match any contributions made by the incumbent cable
    operator.[^56] As the Commission stated in the *Third Report and
    Order*:

    We believe that imposing Section 611 \[PEG\] obligations on open
    video system operators so that to the extent possible the
    obligations are "no greater or lesser" than those imposed on cable
    operators means that, in the absence of an agreement with the local
    franchising authority, an open video system operator must match,
    rather than share, the annual PEG access financial contributions of
    the local cable operator . . . Our modified rule will apply the
    matching principle which we have applied to channel capacity also to
    PEG contributions that cable operators make, and that are actually
    used for PEG access services, facilities and equipment. For
    instance, if a cable operator makes an annual contribution of
    \$15,000 that is used to purchase PEG access equipment, the open
    video system operator will now be required to do likewise.[^57]

    For in-kind contributions, such as cameras and production studios,
    precise duplication is unnecessary and open video system operators
    may work out mutually agreeable terms with cable operators so that
    PEG service to the community is improved and the open video system
    operator fulfills its statutory obligation.[^58] In the absence of
    such agreement, however, the Commission determined that an open
    video system operator should pay the local franchising authority the
    monetary equivalent of the depreciated in-kind contribution, or in
    the case of facilities, the annual amortization value.[^59] In
    addition, the Commission concluded that the costs associated with
    the open video system operator's connection to the cable operator's
    PEG access channel feed shall be borne by the open video system
    operator and that such costs would be counted toward the open video
    system operator's matching obligation.[^60]

12. Although CTC disputes the sincerity of Rice Lake's PEG negotiations,
    it is apparent that the parties negotiated CTC's PEG obligations to
    impasse. In such instances, the default mechanism of Section
    76.1505(d)(1) requires the open video system operator to match the
    annual PEG access financial contribution of the local cable
    operator.[^61] Accordingly, CTC is required to match the annual PEG
    contributions of Charter. With regard to any in-kind contribution,
    CTC is required to pay the local franchising authority the monetary
    equivalent of Charter's depreciated in-kind contribution.[^62] With
    regard to the CTC costs of connection to Charter's PEG channel feed,
    Section 76.1505(d)(4) provides that such costs shall be counted
    towards the open video system operator's matching financial
    contributions.[^63] The City has indicated that it will allow CTC to
    deduct the depreciated value of a digitizer CTC installed for PEG
    access purposes.

13. With regard to CTC's per-subscriber capital grant contribution
    argument, we note that, although such amount is calculated on a
    per-subscriber basis, there is a "Capital Grant Floor" provision in
    the Charter franchise that establishes a minimum amount that Charter
    must pay regardless of the number of subscribers that Charter
    serves. It is this floor amount that Rice Lake appears to require
    CTC to match. This requirement is consistent with Section
    76.1505(d)(1).[^64] CTC further argues that, under certain
    conditions, the "Capital Grant Floor" can be waived by Rice Lake. To
    the extent necessary, we clarify that should the floor amount be
    waived in whole or part by Rice Lake, CTC's obligation would be to
    match Charter's revised capital grant obligation. If waived in its
    entirety, CTC's obligation would likewise be eliminated.

14. Finally, CTC alleges that Rice Lake requires CTC to match in-kind
    contributions made by Charter before CTC served Rice Lake. Section
    76.1505(d)(1) provides that, in the absence of a negotiated
    agreement regarding PEG obligations, "an open video system must
    satisfy the same \[PEG\] obligations as the local cable operator by
    . . . matching the local cable operator's *annual* financial
    contributions towards \[PEG\] services, facilities and equipment
    *that are actually used* for \[PEG\] services, facilities and
    equipment."[^65] We clarify that any matching PEG contributions
    requested by Rice Lake that are attributable to Charter
    contributions made in years prior to the year in which CTC commenced
    service are not consistent with Section 76.1505(d)(1) and are
    precluded. Further CTC is required only to match Charter PEG
    contributions, either cash or in-kind, that actually are used to
    provide PEG services.

# ordering clauseS

15. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** CTC Telcom, Inc.'s Open Video System
    Complaint against the City of Rice Lake, Wisconsin **IS GRANTED** to
    the extent indicated herein and in all other respects **DENIED**.

16. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under § 0.283
    of the Commission's rules, as amended.[^66]

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

W. Kenneth Ferree

Chief, Media Bureau

[^1]: CTC filed its complaint pursuant to the open video system
    complaint procedures of Section 76.1513 and, in the alternative, the
    Section 76.7 general complaint procedures. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§
    76.1513; 76.7. Because Section 76.1513 appears to contemplate only
    complaints against open video system operators, we will treat CTC's
    complaint as filed pursuant to Section 76.7.

[^2]: An open video system is defined as "\[a\] facility consisting of a
    set of transmission paths and associated signal generation,
    reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable
    service which included video programming and which is provided to
    multiple subscribers within a community, provided that the
    Commission has certified that such system complies with this part."
    47 C.F.R. § 76.1500(a).

[^3]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 651, 110
    Stat. 118-19 (1996); Communications Act § 651, 47 U.S. C. § 571.

[^4]: *Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996: Open Video Systems,* 11 FCC Rcd 14639 (1996); *Implementation
    of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video
    Systems,* 11 FCC Rcd 18223 (1996) ("*Second Report and Order");
    Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
    Open Video Systems,*11 FCC Rcd 6776 (1996); *Implementation of
    Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video
    Systems,*11 FCC Rcd 19081 (1996); *Implementation of Section 302 of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video Systems,* 11 FCC Rcd
    20227 (1996) ("*Third Report and Order*"); *Implementation of
    Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video
    Systems,* 12 FCC Rcd 6258 (1997); *Implementation of Section 302 of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video Systems,* 12 FCC Rcd
    7545 (1997); *Implementation of Section 302 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video Systems,* 13 FCC Rcd
    14553 (1998).

[^5]: *Second Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 18232, 18257-60.

[^6]: *Id.* at 18227.

[^7]: *City of Dallas, Texas v. FCC*, 165 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1999),
    *reh\'g denied*, Nos. 96-60502, 96-60581 and 96-60844 (5th Cir. May
    28, 1999) (\"*City of Dallas*\"). In *City of Dallas*, the Fifth
    Circuit affirmed the Commission\'s rules: (i) relating to open video
    system fees paid to local franchise authorities (\"LFAs\"); (ii)
    prohibiting LFAs from requiring institutional networks; and (iii)
    limiting the ability of non-local exchange carrier cable operators
    and expired cable franchisees to become open video system operators.
    165 F.3d at 360. The Fifth Circuit reversed the Commission\'s rules:
    (i) prohibiting LFAs from requiring open video system operators to
    obtain franchises; (ii) requiring open video system operators to
    obtain certification prior to constructing new facilities; and (iii)
    prohibiting local exchange carriers who are also cable operators
    from providing open video system service in the absence of effective
    competition. *Id.* The Fifth Circuit remanded to the Commission for
    further consideration its rules granting discretion to open video
    system operators to permit competing, in-region cable operators to
    become open video system programming providers. *Id.* The Commission
    filed for rehearing before the Fifth Circuit contesting the court\'s
    decision on the issue of LFA ability to require that open video
    systems obtain franchises. The Fifth Circuit denied all rehearing
    requests. The Commission resolved the reversed and remanded issues
    in a separate proceeding. *See Implementation of Section 302 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video Systems*, 14 FCC Rcd
    19700 (1999).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 573(c)(1)&(2).

[^9]: CTC Complaint at 2.

[^10]: *Id.*

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.* at 4.

[^13]: *Id.* at 3.

[^14]: *Id. See CTC Telcom Inc. Certification to Operate An Open Video
    System,* 15 FCC Rcd 10804 (CSB 2000). After receiving its open video
    system certification, CTC indicates that it was notified by Rice
    Lake's Cable Director by letter dated June 19, 2000, that CTC needed
    to obtain a cable television franchise from the City before
    providing open video system service in Rice Lake. CTC Complaint at
    3. As a result, CTC states that it delayed commencing open video
    system service for several weeks. Thereafter in August, 2000, the
    City adopted an open video system Ordinance specifying that open
    video system operators would not need to obtain a cable television
    franchise before offering service in Rice Lake. *Id.* On September
    1, 2000, CTC began providing open video system service. *Id.* at 4.

[^15]: *Id.* at 5.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: CTC Reply at 10, 21.

[^20]: CTC Complaint at 5.

[^21]: *Id.* at 7. Specifically, CTC alleges that the year 2000 in-kind
    contributions for which the City demands matching payments by CTC
    were made by Charter in August 1998, May 2000, and March 2001. *Id.*

[^22]: *Id.*

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: *Id.* at 8.

[^25]: CTC Reply at 7, 20.

[^26]: *Id.* at 8. The applicable language in Section 22a of the Charter
    franchise agreement states: The City shall waive the Capital Grant
    Floor requirement in the event a competitive franchise is awarded to
    another cable operator and the waiver is necessary to achieve equity
    between Charter and the other cable operator with regard to the
    capital grant payment.

[^27]: CTC Complaint at 9. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573(c)(2)(B).

[^28]: CTC Complaint at 9.

[^29]: CTC Reply at 2.

[^30]: *Id.* at 24.

[^31]: *Id.*

[^32]: *Id.*

[^33]: *Id.* at 25.

[^34]: *Id.* at 2, 16. CTC states that in the *Second Report and Order,*
    11 FCC Rcd at 18298, and *Third Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    20282, the Commission emphasized that open video system operators
    should in the first instance be permitted to negotiate their PEG
    access obligations with the relevant franchising authority and
    incorporated this determination regarding the primacy and preferred
    status of negotiation into Section 76.1505(c) of the Rules. CTC
    notes that the matching requirement in Section 76.1505(d)(1) of the
    rules is plainly labeled a default mechanism.

[^35]: CTC Reply at 3.

[^36]: *Id.* at 4.

[^37]: Rice Lake Answer at 3.

[^38]: *Id.* at 4; 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d)(1).

[^39]: Rice Lake Answer at 4.

[^40]: *Id*. at 10.

[^41]: *Id.* at 5.

[^42]: *Id.*

[^43]: *Id.* Rice Lake indicates that during a September 18, 2000, Cable
    Commission meeting CTC claimed \$28,339.85 as the amount appropriate
    to deduct from its obligation to make monetary equivalent payments
    under Rice Lake's open video system ordinance and 47 C.F.R. §
    76.1505(d). Thereafter, by letter dated June 26, 2001, sent to Rice
    Lake's Cable Director, CTC stated that its costs for installing the
    digitizer totaled \$31,927.45. In its reply, CTC indicates that the
    discrepancy in the calculation of connection costs was due to the
    fact that CTC did not initially realize that it should include its
    labor costs as well as its equipment costs in the final calculation.
    The City's Cable Commission approved CTC's inclusion of these labor
    costs and revised the figure to \$31,927.45. Rice Lake Answer at 11
    and CTC Reply at 22.

[^44]: Rice Lake Answer at 38.

[^45]: NATOA is a professional association made up of individual and
    organizations responsible for -- or advising those responsible for
    cable and telecommunications policies and services in local
    governments throughout the United States. The Alliance is a national
    educational and advocacy organization working in support of public,
    educational and government access.

[^46]: Joint Comments at 2.

[^47]: Charter Comments at 2.

[^48]: *Id.* at 3, citing *Third Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 20283
    (1996).

[^49]: *Id.*

[^50]: 47 U.S.C. § 573 (c)(1)(B).

[^51]: 47 U.S.C. § 531.

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 531(b).

[^53]: 47 U.S.C. § 531(c).

[^54]: 47 U.S.C. § 573(c)(2)(A).

[^55]: *Third Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 20282.

[^56]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d)(1).

[^57]: *Third Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 20282.

[^58]: *Id.*

[^59]: *Id.*

[^60]: *Id.*

[^61]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d)(1).

[^62]: *Id.*

[^63]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d)(4).

[^64]: Of course, the City and CTC are free to negotiate the capital
    grant amount to be paid by CTC. For example, applying the
    per-subscriber amount paid by Charter to the number of subscribers
    that CTC actually serves.

[^65]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1505(d)(1) (emphasis added).

[^66]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.