**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CSR 6336-L                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Roderick C. Harsh, United        | ) |                              |
| Productions                      | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| v\.                              |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Mediacom Communications          | * |                              |
| Corporation                      | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Petition For Commercial Leased   | * |                              |
| Access                           |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER

**Adopted: January 26, 2007** **Released: January 29, 2007**

By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:

# introduction

1.  Roderick C. Harsh (\"Harsh"), on behalf of United Productions
    ("United"), filed the captioned petition alleging that Mediacom
    Communications Corporation ("Mediacom") failed to provide access and
    information requested on Mediacom's cable systems located in South
    Walton and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida.[^1] No response from
    Mediacom has been received.[^2] For the reasons stated below, we
    grant the petition.

# discussion

2.  In addition to requesting carriage on Mediacom's cable systems in
    South Walton and Santa Rosa Counties, United requested leased access
    information regarding Mediacom's requirements for insurance and
    technical support fees.[^3] United states that it received a
    confirmation signature card indicating that its request had been
    received by Mediacom.[^4] United asserts that a letter dated
    February 4, 2004 from Mediacom indicated that because United's
    letter took approximately two weeks to reach Mediacom it would be
    unable to comply with United's request for carriage by February 15,
    2004.[^5] Mediacom therefore requested that the deadline be extended
    to February 17, 2004.[^6] United states that it agreed to the
    extension, but that when it subsequently attempted to substantiate
    access and obtain information, Mediacom did not return phone calls
    and has taken no further action regarding United's request.[^7]
    United asserts that Mediacom violated Section 76.970 of Commission's
    rules, which requires a cable system operator to provide prospective
    leased access programmers with leased access information within 15
    calendar days of the date of the request and that Mediacom failed to
    grant United access to Mediacom's cable systems in South Walton and
    Santa Rosa Counties, Florida.[^8] As a result of Mediacom's actions,
    United asserts that the company is losing income necessary to
    support its operations.[^9]

3.  On March 4, 2004, United filed a supplement to its initial petition
    asserting that it received an application for leased access and
    other related paperwork, but that the information received was
    incomplete and failed to answer numerous specific questions that
    United posed in the initial correspondence with Mediacom.[^10] In
    addition, United states that Mediacom has required United to obtain
    "Media Perils Insurance" in the amount of \$1,000,000.[^11] United
    contends that this requirement will prevent it from obtaining leased
    access because the insurance is cost prohibitive.[^12]

4.  Pursuant to Section 76.970(i)(1), cable operators are required to
    respond to prospective leased access programmers within 15 calendar
    days of the date on which a request for leased access information
    was made.[^13] On January 20, 2004, United sent Mediacom a request
    for leased access information. Pursuant to Section 76.970(i)(1),
    Mediacom would have had to respond to United's request on or before
    February 4, 2004. As set forth above, United indicates that although
    Mediacom was in contact by that date, Mediacom requested and
    received an extension of the time to respond to February 17, 2004.
    However, Mediacom failed to provide the information requested by
    February 17, 2004; failed to return United's phone calls for
    clarification and information; and failed to provide a response to
    United's leased access request. Although United received an
    application from Mediacom for leased access on March 4, 2004, the
    information received was untimely, incomplete, and failed to answer
    United's leased access related questions. We find, therefore, that
    Mediacom failed to provide leased access to United pursuant to
    Section 76.971. We also find that Mediacom has failed to comply with
    the provisions of Section 76.970(i)(1). We will order Mediacom to
    supply the information set out in this rule provision. We caution
    Mediacom that future violations of this nature may subject it to
    monetary forfeiture.

5.  United previously has asserted that the high cost of insurance
    required by a cable operator prevented it from gaining access.[^14]
    The Commission held that requiring a leased access programmer to
    obtain reasonable liability insurance coverage does not constitute a
    violation of the leased access regulations.[^15] However, in *United
    Media Concepts,* the Commission concluded that the cost to United of
    obtaining insurance required by the cable operator was an obstacle
    to obtaining access.[^16] Similarly, in the instant case, United
    contends that the requirement to obtain \$1 million worth of
    insurance is extremely cost prohibitive and will prevent the company
    from obtaining leased access if insurance at that amount is
    required. The burden of establishing that the required insurance is
    reasonable is upon Mediacom.[^17] No evidence has been filed by
    Mediacom establishing the reasonableness of its insurance
    requirement, such as whether Mediacom requires non-leased access
    programmers to obtain insurance or carries insurance with respect to
    non-leased access programming, whether Mediacom has incurred
    litigation costs in this context, or the likelihood that the
    programming at issue will pose a liability risk. Consequently, we
    find that Mediacom's insurance requirement as applied to United is
    not in compliance with the leased access rules and should be
    eliminated or reduced to a reasonable amount consistent with the
    *Second Report and Order.*

# ordering clause

6.  Accordingly, **IT IS HEREBY ORDERED** that the petition for relief
    filed by Roderick C. Harsh, United Productions in File No. CSR
    6336-L **IS HEREBY GRANTED** to the extent discussed herein.

7.  **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that Mediacom shall within 15 days from
    the release date of this order provide United the requested leased
    access information, to the extent it has not already done so.

8.  This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section
    0.283 of the Commission's rules. [^18]

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Steven A. Broeckaert, Deputy Chief, Policy Division

    Media Bureau

[^1]: On January 20, 2004, by certified letter, United requested
    carriage on Mediacom's South Walton and Santa Rosa cable systems. On
    February 25, 2005, United filed this petition for special relief.
    Pursuant to Section 76.975(d) a petition must be filed within 60
    days of the alleged violation. United is in compliance with this
    rule provision.

[^2]: United states that a certified copy of its petition was served on
    the cable operator.

[^3]: United Petition at 1.

[^4]: *Id.*

[^5]: *Id.*

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: *Id.*

[^8]: *Id.; see* 47 C.F.R §§ 76.970 and 76.971.

[^9]: *Id.* at 2.

[^10]: United Supplemental Petition at 1.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.970(i)(1).

[^14]: *See Roderick C. Harsh, United Media Concepts, Petitioner v. TWC
    Cable Partners d/b/a Emerald Costs Cable Television,* 12 FCC Rcd
    5985 (CSB 1997)("*United Media Concepts").*

[^15]: *See Anthony Giannotti v. Cablevision Systems Corporation,* 11
    FCC Rcd 10441 (CSB 1996).

[^16]: *See Roderick C. Harsh, United Media Concepts, Petitioner v. TWC
    Cable Partners d/b/a Emerald Costs Cable Television,* 12 FCC Rcd
    5985, 5988 (CSB 1997).

[^17]: *See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer
    Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Leased Commercial Access,*
    Second Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration of the
    First Report and Order, CS Docket No. 96-60, FCC 97-27, 12 FCC Rcd
    5267 (1997) ("*Second Report and Order*") (the Commission concluded
    that insurance requirements must be reasonable in relation to the
    objective of the requirement. Cable operators will bear the burden
    of proof in establishing reasonableness and insurance requirements
    may be sufficient to insure adequate coverage. Determinations of
    what is a "reasonable" insurance requirement will be based on the
    operator's practices with respect to insurance requirements imposed
    on non-leased access programmers, the likelihood that the nature of
    the leased access programming will pose a liability risk for the
    operator, previous instances of litigation arising from the leased
    access programming, and any other relevant factors).

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.