##  Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

###  Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of: )

)

INTERNET VENTURES, INC. ) File No. CSR-5407-L

INTERNET ON-RAMP, INC. )

)

Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Internet )

Service Providers are Entitled to Leased Access )

to Cable Facilities Under Section 612 of the )

Communications Act )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: February 7, 2000 Released: February 18, 2000**

By the Commission:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. Internet Ventures, Inc. and its subsidiary, Internet On-Ramp, Inc.
(collectively \"IVI\"), filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling
(\"Petition\") pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Commission\'s Rules,[^1]
requesting the Commission to issue a ruling that Internet service
providers (\"ISPs\"), such as IVI, are entitled to commercial leased
access under Section 612 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(\"Communications Act\").[^2] The Petition was placed on public notice
and a time frame was established for filing comments and reply
comments.[^3]

2\. IVI states that it has requested and been denied leased access in
Spokane, Washington by TCI of Washington (\"TCI\"), the holder of the
Spokane Cable Communications Franchise.[^4] IVI asserts that it offers
dial-up and broadband Internet communications in Spokane and wishes to
provide its PeRKInet service[^5] over cable bandwidth to the residents
of Spokane by leasing 6 MHz of TCI\'s cable facilities in order to
supply such service.[^6] IVI also argues that the cable operator will
not be required to modify its plant or make any additional investments
beyond what it is required to provide to other types of leased access
users.[^7] IVI states that after being denied leased access for its
Internet service by TCI,[^8] it filed a complaint with the City of
Spokane, arguing that TCI\'s action violated the TCI cable franchise
with the City.[^9] The City of Spokane declined to take action against
TCI and noted that it was unwilling to designate scarce local resources
to support the position of either side, noting the lack of clear legal
or policy guidelines regarding the issue of whether ISPs are entitled to
utilize the leased access channel capacity of cable systems.[^10]
Therefore, IVI requests that the issues raised in this matter be
resolved by the Commission. As discussed below, we find that Section 612
does not require cable operators to make channel capacity on their cable
systems available for the range of services that IVI seeks to offer. We
therefore deny the petition.

**II. BACKGROUND**

3\. The statutory framework for commercial leased access, provided for
in Section 612 of the Communications Act, was established by the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984 (\"1984 Cable Act\")[^11] and later
amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 (\"1992 Cable Act\").[^12] The 1984 Cable Act, through Section
612, established a federal scheme of channel leasing to assure access to
cable systems by third parties unaffiliated with the cable operator who
want to distribute video programming free of the editorial control of
the cable operator.[^13] By enacting Section 612, Congress ensured that
unaffiliated video programmers otherwise unable to secure channel
capacity on a cable system would be able to lease capacity in order to
originate, produce and provide independent video programming over which
they, rather than the cable operator, maintained editorial control.[^14]
Leased access set-aside requirements were established by Congress in
proportion to a system\'s total activated channel capacity to \"assure
that the widest possible diversity of information sources are made
available to the public from cable systems in a manner consistent with
the growth and development of cable systems.\"[^15] Section 612 permits
cable operators to use any unused leased access channel capacity for
their own purposes until a written agreement for the use of such leased
access capacity is obtained.[^16] Each system operator subject to this
requirement must establish, consistent with the rules prescribed by the
Commission, \"the price, terms, and conditions of such use which are at
least sufficient that such use will not adversely affect the operation,
financial condition, or market development of the cable system.\"[^17]

4\. The 1992 Cable Act amendments to Section 612 broadened the statutory
purpose to include \"the promotion of competition in the delivery of
diverse sources of video programming,\"[^18] and expanded the
Commission\'s authority over leased access. The legislative history of
the 1992 amendments expresses concern that some cable operators may have
established unreasonable terms or may have had financial incentives to
refuse to lease channel capacity to potential leased access users based
on anti-competitive motives, especially if the operator had a financial
interest in the programming services it carried.[^19] Under the 1992
Cable Act, the Commission was directed: (1) to determine the maximum
reasonable rates that a cable operator may establish for leased access
use, including the rate charged for the billing of subscribers and for
the collection of revenue from subscribers by the cable operator for
such use; (2) to establish reasonable terms and conditions for leased
access, including those for billing and collection; and (3) to establish
procedures for the expedited resolution of leased access disputes.[^20]
The Commission later enacted regulations to implement the leased access
provisions of the 1992 Cable Act.[^21]

**III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES**

5\. IVI seeks a declaratory ruling that ISPs are entitled to commercial
leased access to cable facilities under Section 612 of the
Communications Act.[^22] Section 612 requires cable operators of cable
systems with 36 or more channels to designate channel capacity for
commercial use by third parties unaffiliated with the cable
operator.[^23] Commercial use is defined as the \"provision of video
programming.\"[^24] The statutory definition of video programming is
\"programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to
programming provided by, a television broadcast station.\"[^25] As a
threshold matter, to be eligible for leased access channel capacity, the
content delivered by IVI, and other ISPs, must constitute video
programming as defined by the Communications Act. The language of the
Act makes clear that \"commercial use\" of leased access channels is
limited to providers of \"video programming.\"[^26] This stands in
contrast to the definition of the term \"cable service\" set forth in
the Communications Act which, in addition to offering video programming,
also permits cable operators to offer \"other programming
services.\"[^27] The leased access rules specifically permit only the
provision of video programming.

6\. IVI contends that ISPs are providers of video programming under
Section 612 and are entitled to leased commercial access.[^28] IVI
believes that the availability over the Internet of television broadcast
stations and films through \"streaming technology\" demonstrates that
the Internet provides the same video programming that television
broadcasting stations provide.[^29] IVI is supported by several
commenters who contend that the programming provided by ISPs is plainly
comparable to the programming provided by a television broadcast
station.[^30] ISP commenters further argue that video programming
provided by ISPs need not be identical to that provided by television
broadcast stations, as long as it is comparable.[^31] IVI and dotSTAR
argue that Internet picture quality will be improved once it is offered
over cable because of increased transmission speed.[^32] NATOA asserts
that bandwidth limitations imposed by cable operators determine if
Internet content resembles video programming.[^33] According to NATOA,
if a cable operator provided IVI a leased access channel capacity of 6
MHz, streaming video would be of comparable quality to the other video
programming on the cable system.[^34] VDPS and other ISP commenters
contend that the convergence of broadcast and Internet technologies
indicates that differences in the video experience provided by broadcast
television and Internet video over cable are disappearing.[^35] IVI
maintains that there is no legal basis for treating the same programming
material differently when only the delivery path for programming offered
by the Internet is different than that employed by broadcast
stations.[^36] Qwest Communications Corporation (\"Qwest\") maintains
that Section 612 does not specify the type of technology that must be
used to deliver video programming and the legislative history suggests
that any type of technology could be used to deliver video
programming.[^37]

7\. Commenters in support of IVI\'s petition believe that ISPs'
provision of data as well as video programming does not disqualify them
from leased access eligibility because television stations may, and
often do, offer non-video ancillary data pursuant to current Commission
rules.[^38] CDS Networks, Inc. (\"CDS Networks\") argue that the
relative quantities of video and data have no bearing on whether content
is video programming because much of a digital television (DTV) channel
may technically consist of unrelated data providing ancillary and
supplementary services, in addition to carriage of a video signal.[^39]

8\. In opposition, cable commenters argue that provision of access to
the Internet, including video material available on the Internet, is not
tantamount to being a provider of video programming for purposes of
Section 612.[^40] Commenters assert that in creating the leased access
legislation in 1984, Congress limited the class of potential users of
leased access by narrowly defining \"video programming\" as programming
comparable to that provided by broadcast television stations in
1984.[^41] Cable commenters argue that Internet video today is not
comparable to broadcast television in quality and even if some day a
portion of ISP access service may connect to video streaming that may be
comparable to broadcast television programming, ISPs would still not be
entitled to leased access because they are not providers of video
programming.[^42]

9\. Commenters argue that the interactive nature of the Internet removes
Internet video service from the statutory definition of \"video
programming.\"[^43] Commenters maintain that the Commission has
emphasized in previous decisions that one of the key characteristics of
the programming generally offered in 1984 by broadcast stations,
superstations, cable networks and pay cable was that it was one way,
broadcast from a single point to multiple points.[^44] The National
Cable Television Association (\"NCTA\") notes that there are fundamental
differences between the one-way delivery of broadcast television and the
two-way nature of video over the Internet.[^45] NCTA points out that the
Commission previously recognized the distinction between providing video
programming and providing interactive functionality by noting that the
one way nature of broadcast stations provides no opportunity for viewer
interaction, manipulation or customization.[^46] Commenters also
maintain that in previous instances, the Commission has determined that
Internet access service is not \"video programming\" as the Commission
defines that term.[^47] Allbritton argues that because the Commission
stated in its most recent Video Competition Report that the quality of
Internet video is not comparable to that of the video programming
offered by television broadcast stations, Internet video is not Title VI
video programming.[^48] Commenters also maintain that the Commission
recently has rejected attempts to classify Internet programming as video
programming for purposes of the over-the-air reception devices
rules.[^49] Comcast also notes that the Commission has declined to
extend video programming regulations such as closed captioning, v-chip,
and emergency alert rules to Internet transmissions.[^50]

10\. Cable commenters dispute that what is offered by commercial
broadcast television stations is comparable to the Internet because
television broadcast stations primarily provide video programming,
whereas the Internet is primarily data oriented.[^51] NCTA disputes that
the non-video material provided as part of an ISP\'s Internet access is
encompassed within the plain language of Section 612.[^52] Allbritton
Communications Company (\"Allbritton\") argues that video streaming
provided interactively over the Internet is an \"information service,\"
which should not be subject to Title VI.[^53] Allbritton maintains that
the Commission has not regulated ISPs under Title II, and it would be
illogical to impose regulatory requirements under Title VI.[^54] AT&T
maintains that the leased access rules apply only to the provision of
video programming, which renders whatever non-video data services that
television broadcasters offer in addition to video programming
ineligible for entitlement to leased access.[^55] Further, Adelphia
argues that although digital television signals and Internet content
both combine data and video elements, these media are quite different
because television combines a primary video content with ancillary and
supplementary data services, whereas Internet content is overwhelmingly
text and data oriented, with some ancillary video services.[^56]

11\. At the outset of our discussion, we observe that, in addition to
discussing the issue of ISP eligibility under the leased access
provisions of Section 612, commenters also extensively discussed broader
issues, such as mandatory ISP access to cable operators\' broadband
facilities, and whether Internet access provided by a cable system
constitutes \"cable service,\"[^57] \"telecommunications,\"[^58] or an
\"information service.\"[^59] The Commission need not address these
issues in this proceeding.[^60] Rather, this proceeding is narrowly
focused on the issue of ISP leased access eligibility in the context of
Section 612 and is not the appropriate forum to consider such issues.

12\. While commenters raised numerous issues regarding the availability,
quality, and regulatory problems associated with Internet \"streamed\"
video programming, we need address only the most basic threshold issue
to resolve IVI\'s petition: does ISP Internet access service, such as
that provided by IVI, constitute video programming as contemplated by
Section 612 of the Communications Act (*i.e.*, programming provided by,
or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a
television broadcast station)? We conclude that it does not.

13\. Internet access service generally consists of numerous distinct and
related elements, such as access to personal, educational,
informational, and commercial web sites; the ability to send and receive
electronic mail; access to streamed video content; Internet video
messaging and conferencing; and a host of other services both realized
and forthcoming. In short, Internet access service provides consumers
with a varied array of services. In contrast, the leased access
provisions of the Communications Act require cable operators to reserve
channel capacity for one statutorily prescribed purpose \-- video
programming.[^61] In enacting the leased access provisions in 1984 and
later amending them in 1992, Congress did not express an intention that
the leased access provisions require cable operators to make channel
capacity available for anything other than video programming.
Accordingly, Section 612 cannot be read as requiring a cable operator to
make channel capacity available to provide services that are not video
programming, such as the Internet access service provided by IVI and
other ISPs. As noted, video programming is defined by the statute in
terms of comparability to programming provided by a television broadcast
station.[^62] The Commission has previously opined that Congress
intended the "video programming" definition to take its meaning from the
services offered at the time (1984) when the definition was adopted.
*Second Video Dialtone Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 5781, para. 75 (1992). To the
extent that IVI or others might dispute this reading of the statute in
arguing that "video programming" includes things such as data services
or interactive services, we note that the statutory reference is
specifically to "video" and to "programming." While IVI's submission
might be read as implicitly requesting that we overrule that
determination,[^63] they have made no direct challenge to the validity
of the precedent and the record in this proceeding does not permit us to
do so. The term "video programming" as currently understood has meaning
not solely for purposes of the leased access rules but in numerous other
provisions of the Communications Act.[^64] Admittedly, we might face a
different set of issues if IVI, or another ISP, proposed to utilize
leased access capacity for the provision of a service comprised wholly
of video programming available via the Internet. Such a proposal would
not automatically run afoul of the threshold issue necessitating denial
of IVI\'s petition. In this regard, cable commenters have raised
arguments regarding whether video content obtained through the Internet
qualifies as \"video programming\" for purposes of Section 612, and
whether ISPs, such as IVI, are actually \"providers\" of video
programming as contemplated by Section 612.[^65] Because we resolve
IVI\'s petition on the narrow ground that Section 612 does not permit
ISPs to obtain leased access channel capacity for the purpose of
providing services other than video programming, we need not address
these arguments. We note only that, regardless of the source of the
video content, requests for leased access channel capacity must comply
with all of the requirements set forth in Section 612.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

14\. Broadband Internet service offers consumers the wealth of
information, convenience, and opportunity of the Internet at connection
speeds previously unavailable. However, Congress limited the leased
access provisions in scope and purpose. Section 612 does not mandate
access to a cable operator\'s facilities for other than the provision of
video programming generally comparable to that offered by television
broadcast stations. Internet access service, such as that proposed by
IVI, is not limited to the provision of such programming. Finally, we
note that IVI has entered into several voluntary agreements with cable
operators to provide its Internet service to cable subscribers using the
cable operator\'s broadband facilities. We encourage such market-based
solutions and emphasize that our conclusions today have no impact upon
such voluntary agreements.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSE**

15\. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that the Petition for Declaratory
Ruling filed by Internet Ventures, Inc., and its subsidiary, Internet
On-Ramp, Inc., **IS DENIED**.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

# APPENDIX A

**Petitioner**

Internet Ventures, Inc. (IVI)

**Commenters**

Adelphia Communications Corp., Insight Communications, LP and MediaCom
LLC (Adelphia)

Allbritton Communications Company (Allbritton)

America Online, Inc. (AOL)

American Cable Association (ACA)

Amigo.Net and Citizen Power, Inc. (Amigo.Net)

AT&T Corp. (AT&T)

Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. (Comcast)

CDS Networks, Inc. (CDS Networks)

dotSTAR Communications L.C. (dotSTAR)

Flashnet Communications, Inc., et al. (Texas ISPs)

GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

King County, Washington (King County)

MediaOne Group, Inc. (MediaOne)

MidWest Communications, Inc. (MidWest)

National Cable Television Association (NCTA)

Qwest Communications Corporation (Qwest)

Spokane City - County Cable Advisory Board (Spokane CAB)

Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)

TimeWarner Cable (TW)

Touch America, Inc. (Touch America)

United Telecom Council (UTC)

Vermont Department of Public Service (VDPS)

**Reply Commenters**

Adelphia Communications Corp., Insight Communications, LP and MediaCom
LLC (Adelphia)

Allbritton Communications Company (Allbritton)

American Cable Association (ACA)

Ameritech New Media, Inc. (Ameritech)

AT&T Corp. (AT&T)

BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth)

CableWeb Systems, Inc. (CableWeb)

dotSTAR Communications L.C. (dotSTAR)

GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

High Speed Access Corp. (HSAC)

Internet Ventures, Inc. (IVI)

MidWest Communications, Inc. (MidWest)

National Association of the Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA)

National Cable Television Association (NCTA)

TimeWarner Cable (TW)

Vermont Department of Public Service, et al. (VDPS)

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2.

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 532.

[^3]: *See Petition Seeking Declaratory Ruling that Internet Service
    Providers are Entitled* *to Commercial Leased Access to* *Cable
    Facilities under Section 612 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended*, Public Notice, DA 99-1104 (rel. June 8, 1999). Comments
    were due on July 13, 1999 and replies were originally due on July
    28, 1999. IVI later filed for a \"Motion for Extension of Time,\"
    which was subsequently granted, pursuant to Section 1.46 of the
    Commission\'s rules, requesting that the deadline for filing replies
    be extended until August 11, 1999. *See In the Matter of: Internet*
    *Ventures, Inc. and Internet On-Ramp, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 14 FCC Rcd 11636 (1999). A list of commenters and reply
    commenters is set forth in Appendix A and includes the acronyms and
    abbreviations by which they are referred in this item.

[^4]: Petition at 1.

[^5]: PeRKInet uses a Phone Return Cable Internet technology, which
    combines regular phone lines and existing cable television or
    wireless plant to deliver Internet access. Petition at 2.

[^6]: Petition at 1-2.

[^7]: *Id.* at 14.

[^8]: *Id.* at 3, referencing letters dated January 7, 1999, January 28,
    1999 and February 18, 1999 from Kenneth G. Watts, General Manager,
    TCI of Washington to Don Janke, Chairman, Internet On-Ramp, Inc.

[^9]: *Id.* at 4, referencing the April 14, 1999 Complaint filed with
    the City of Spokane, Washington by Internet On-Ramp, Inc. against
    TCI of Washington.

[^10]: *Id.* at 4, referencing the May 12, 1999 letter from Bill Pupo,
    Spokane City Manager to Robert Bowman, Internet On-Ramp, Inc.

[^11]: Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98
    Stat. 2779 (1984), 47 U.S.C. § 521 *et seq.* The leased access
    provisions are codified at Communications Act § 612, 47 U.S.C. §
    532.

[^12]: Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
    Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), 47 U.S.C. § 521 *et.
    seq.* (1992). The 1992 Cable Act amends Title VI of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 521 *et. seq.*

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(b). In promulgating Section 612, the House
    Committee stated that its \"overriding goal in adopting this section
    is divorcing cable operator editorial control over a limited number
    of channels. . . . \[I\]t is not the cable operator\'s exercise of
    any economic power, but his exercise of editorial control, which is
    of concern to the Committee.\" House Committee on Energy and
    Commerce, H.R. Rep. No. 934 at 50, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984).

[^14]: Congress observed that \"\[c\]able operators clearly have an
    incentive to provide a diversity of program services . . . .
    \[h\]owever, cable operators do not necessarily have the incentive
    to provide a diversity of programming sources, especially when a
    particular program supplier\'s offering provides programming which
    represents a social or political viewpoint that a cable operator
    does not wish to disseminate, or the offering competes with a
    program service already being provided by that cable system. H.R.
    Rep. No. 934 at 48, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 532(a), 532(b)(1). Cable systems with 36 or more
    activated channels are required to comply with these set-aside
    requirements.

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(b)(4).

[^17]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(c)(1).

[^18]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(a).

[^19]: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, H.R. Rep. No. 628 at 39,
    102d Cong., 2d Sess.

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(c)(4)(A)(i), (ii), (iii).

[^21]: The Commission\'s rules governing commercial leased access are
    located at 47 C.F.R. 76.701, 76.970, 76.971, 76.975 and 76.977. The
    Commission established its initial leased access regulations in
    *Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer
    Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Rate Regulation)*, Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631
    (1993); these rules were later amended in *Order on Reconsideration
    of the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 16933 (1996) and *Second Report and Order
    and Second Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd 5267 (1997).

[^22]: 47 U.S.C. § 532.

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(b)(1)(A)-(E).

[^24]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(b)(5).

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. § 522(20).

[^26]: 47 U.S.C. § 532(b)(5).

[^27]: Cable service is defines as \"the one-way transmission to
    subscribers of (i) video programming; or (ii) other programming
    service . . . \"). 47 U.S.C. § 522(6).

[^28]: Petition at 4.

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: Qwest Comments at 4; VDPS Comments at 5-6.

[^31]: IVI Reply at 25; VDPS Reply at 2-3.

[^32]: IVI Reply at 30; dotSTAR Reply at 3.

[^33]: NATOA Reply at 4.

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: VDPS Comments at 8; TRA Comments at 6; AOL Comments at 6.

[^36]: Petition at 5.

[^37]: Qwest Comments at 5, citing *Cable Communications Policy Act*,
    H.R. Rep. No. 98-134, at 4677-81 (1984).

[^38]: CDS Networks Comments at 3; IVI Petition at 7.

[^39]: CDS Networks Comments at 3-4.

[^40]: ACA Comments at 8; Allbritton Comments at 4; MediaOne Comments at
    9; NCTA Comments at 3; TW Comments at 3; AT&T Comments at 9.

[^41]: NCTA Comments at 4, *citing* 47 U.S.C. §522(20); TW Comments at
    7.

[^42]: NCTA Comments at 11; TW Comments at 6.

[^43]: MediaOne Comments at 10; NCTA Comments at 7.

[^44]: NCTA Comments at 7 and TW Comments at 3, each citing *Telephone
    Company-Cable Television Cross-Ownership Rules*, Second Report and
    Order, Recommendation to Congress, and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 5781, 5821 (1992) (*\"Second Video
    Dialtone Order\"*); MediaOne Comments at 11.

[^45]: NCTA Comments at 9.

[^46]: *Id.* at 7; Comcast Comments at 6, each citing the *Second*
    *Video Dialtone Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 5781, 5821 (1992).

[^47]: Allbritton Comments at 7; AT&T Comments at 7; MediaOne Comments
    at 9; NCTA Comments at 9.

[^48]: Allbritton Comments at 7, citing *Annual Assessment of the Status
    of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of* *Video Programming,*
    Fifth Annual Report, 13 FCC Rcd 24284, 24349-24350 (1998) *(\"Fifth
    Annual Competition Report\"*).

[^49]: AT&T Comments at 9; NCTA Comments at 9, citing *Implementation of
    Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Restrictions on
    Over-the-Air Reception Devices: Television Broadcast Service and
    Multichannel Multipoint* *Distribution Service*, Order On
    Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 18962, 18987-88 (1998).

[^50]: Comcast Comments at 6-7.

[^51]: ACA Comments at 8; Adelphia Comments at 5.

[^52]: NCTA Comments at 12.

[^53]: Allbritton Comments at 4, citing 47 U.S.C. §153(20).

[^54]: Allbritton Comments at 4.

[^55]: AT&T Comments at 11.

[^56]: Adelphia Comments at 5-6. Commenters maintain that treating the
    services delivered by ISPs as video programming has not easily
    foreseen consequences. ACA Comments at 6; Adelphia Comments at 9. TW
    contends that finding Internet streamed video and retransmission of
    television stations by cable to both constitute video programming
    has implications regarding copyright liability, retransmission
    consent requirements, and a host of signal carriage issues,
    including network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports
    blackout. TW Comments at 10. Commenters also contend that the large
    assortment of adult-oriented services on the Internet makes it
    practically impossible for cable operators to exercise their rights
    under Section 612(h) to block obscene or indecent programming. ACA
    Comments at 6; Adelphia Comments at 9.

[^57]: 47 U.S.C. § 522(6).

[^58]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(43).

[^59]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(20).

[^60]: *See generally Brief for the Federal Communications Commission as
    Amicus Curiae, AT&T Corp., Telecommunications, Inc., et al. v. City
    of Portland et al.* at 19, Case No. 99-65 PA (9th Cir. 1999).

[^61]: 47 U.S.C. § 522(20).

[^62]: *Id.*

[^63]: *See* IVI *Ex Parte* presentation of October 22, 1999 (citing
    example of low power television station in Houston, Texas that
    provides Internet data delivery on a subscription basis as
    supporting its definition of "video programming").

[^64]: *See, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(1)(C) (interconnection), 47
    U.S.C. § 534(g)(1) (cable must carry), 47 U.S.C. § 549(a), (b), (c),
    (d), (e) (cable navigation devices), 47 U.S.C. § 613(b) (video
    programming accessibility) *et al.*

[^65]: Commenters also argue whether the legislative objectives behind
    Section 612 support the use of leased access channels by ISPs. They
    also present arguments regarding whether the public interest is
    served by ISP leased access use. Again, these issues need not be
    addressed in this proceeding because we have concluded that IVI is
    ineligible for leased access under the express language of Section
    612.