It is further ordered, That A.T. & T. is authorized to use the voice circuits in the Hong Kong-Singapore segment of the SEACOM submarine cable system it is authorized to acquire on an indefeasible right of use basis in the provision of the necessary connecting facilities between the earth station at Hong Kong on the one hand and Singapore and Malaysia on the other hand; Provided, however, That this order and authorization does not authorize the acquisition of interests in additional voice circuits in the SEACOM submarine cable system on an indefeasible right of use basis; It is further ordered, That this authorization shall be continued on a year-to-year basis commencing January 1, 1970, unless the Commission notifies the applicant to the contrary and requires the filing of a new application on or before December 1, of the then current authorization term; It is further ordered, That A.T. & T. is authorized to use the satellite voice circuits and the terrestrial connecting circuits authorized herein to provide message telephone service, private line circuits for voice. use only, and program transmission service; It is further ordered, That A.T. & T. shall, no later than 15 days after the first day of January, April, July, and October, respectively, of each year, submit a report to the Commission showing the number of satellite circuits and overseas terrestrial connecting circuits acquired and operated as of the first day of January, April, July, and October, respectively, to each point, pursuant to this authorization; It is further ordered, That the authority herein granted covers only the acquisition and operation specifically authorized above, and does not cover the acquisition or operation of any equipment which may be utilized to increase the number of normal grade voice channels derived or utilized, or to increase the number of voice messages which can be handled by each channel; It is further ordered, That A.T. & T. shall seek specific authority from the Commission to extend the circuits authorized herein bevond the points indicated in appendix A hereto by means of circuits in which A.T. & T. acquires any interest, and that A.T. & T. does not need to seek sepcific Commission authority to handle communications destined beyond such points provided such communications are handled via facilities in which A.T. & T. has no interest; It is further ordered. That application file No. P-C-6602, as amended files Nos. P-C-6602-A and P-C-6602-A-1, application file No. P-C-6724, application file No. 7009, as amended file No. P-C7009-A, and application file No. P-C-7186, Are hereby dismissed, without prejudice; It is further ordered, That the presently effective temporary authori zations listed in paragraph 5 herein, Are hereby terminated: It is further ordered, That jurisdiction is retained over all aspects of this matter, specifically including, if necessary, the reallocation of the satellite circuits authorized herein among the various international carriers and other authorized users, if any, and from voice to record carriers, or record to voice carriers, and between record carriers in order to insure that all present and future authorized carries shall have nondisciminatory use of, and equitable access to, the communications satellite system. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Korea........ Japan........ Malaysia......... Hong Kong Okinawa.... Japan.... Taiwan.......--- Normal routing from overseas earth Landline circuits from earth station in Japan to ter- Landline circuits from earth station in Hong Kong to Landline circuits from earth station in Japan to Philippines....... Landline circuits from earth station in the Philippines Singapore.............. Hong Kong. Landline circuits from earth station in Hong Kong Number of voice circuits authorized 14 3 10 5 18 F.C.C. 2d ATLANTIC VIDEO CORP., C/O MR. WALTER READE, JR., Mayfair House, Deal Road, Oakhurst, N.J.07755. GENTLEMEN: This is in reference to your petition for partial reconsideration of the Commission's January 21, 1969, action concerning your application (BMPCT-6451) for an extension of time to complete construction of Television Broadcast station WRTV, channel 58, Asbury Park, N.J. The Commission dismissed your application, cancelled your construction permit and deleted the call letters WRTV. In your petition you request the Commission to reconsider only the deletion of the call letters, and that these letters be reserved for you pending the award of a construction permit to one of the three applicants who have filed for channel 68, Newark, N.J. You also request a waiver of section 1.550(b) (1) of the Commission's rules which prohibits the assignment of call letters before a construction permit has been issued. After carefully reviewing your allegations, the Commission has found nothing to indicate that a waiver of section 1.550 (b) (1) would serve the public interest. Accordingly, your petition for partial reconsideration Is hereby denied. Commissioner Kenneth A. Cox was absent. Commissioner James J. Wadsworth dissented. BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, 18 F.C.C. 2d F.C.C. 69-819 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 BETTER T.V., INC. OF DUTCHESS COUNTY, N.Y. (COMPLAINANT) v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE Co. (DEFENDANT) In Re Applications of NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., FOR CERTIFICATES U.S. CABLEVISION CORP., IN THE GENERAL VI- HUDSON VALLEY CABLEVISION CORP., IN THE CATSKILL CABLEVISION CORP., IN THE GENERAL COMTEL, INC., IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, WEOK CABLEVISION, INC., IN THE GENERAL WEOK CABLEVISION, INC., IN THE GENERAL BROADWAY MAINTENANCE CATV CORP., IN THE Docket No. 17441 Docket No. 18525 File No. P-C-7116 Docket No. 18618 Docket No. 18619 Docket No. 18622 Docket No. 18623 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND CERTIFICATE (Adopted July 29, 1969) BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER BARTLEY CONCURRING IN THE RESULT; COMMISSIONER ROBERT E. LEE ABSENT. 1. By a memorandum opinion and order, 17 F.C.C. 2d 367, released April 29, 1969, in dockets Nos. 17441 and 18525, the Commission desig 1 Cablevision Enterprises, Inc., named in the application as the CATV customer, has been acquired by WEOK Cablevision, Inc., and the former corporation was dissolved. nated for a consolidated hearing a complaint by Better T.V., Inc., of Dutchess County, N.Y., against New York Telephone Co. (Telco), and the application of the said telephone company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to section 214 of the Communications Act. Both the complaint and the section 214 certification application relate to the construction of CATV channel distribution facilities in Hyde Park, N.Y. 2. The designated issues contemplate exploration into the Telco policies and practices underlying the grant of some and denial of other pole-line attachment arrangements; whether undue or unreasonable preference or prejudice or advantage or disadvantage resulted from such policies and practices; whether certification of the proposed construction and operation is warranted; and, if so, whether a grant of the certification application should be made subject to any conditions. Since it appeared that similar applications for certification had been filed by Telco for CATV facilities in other communities within the State, and that such applications might be designated for hearing in a consolidated proceeding, leave to intervene was granted to certain specified persons and entities which were involved in the other applications. 3. Now before the Commission are the following: (a) A petition filed May 15, 1969, by Telco for reconsideration of the designation order, to confine the evidentiary hearing to the Hyde Park application (file No. P-C-7271), and to withdraw the permission for leave to intervene from any person or entity not concerned with that application; and (b) a motion for consolidated hearing filed jointly by the Common Carrier Bureau and the CATV Task Force on May 29, 1969; together with the responsive pleadings directed to the said petition and motion. On June 9, 1969, Dimension Cable TV, Inc., filed a pleading in response to the joint motion for consolidation which contained comments in partial opposition thereto and, in addition, a request for a grant without hearing of the certification application in file No. P-C-7116. 4. In the designation order in dockets Nos. 17441 and 18525, we noted that a number of applications by Telco for CATV facilities in communities in New York State were pending and that a consolidated hearing for at least some of them might be appropriate. Processing of such applications has been completed and a determination must now be made as to whether any should be designated for hearing and, if so, whether the pleadings raise issues which are sufficiently similar to warrant hearing in a consolidated proceeding. 2 Telco also requests that the complaint in docket No. 17441 be dismissed, but the request is so completely without merit as to require no extended discussion. The Commission did not hold, as Telco erroneously asserts, that the allegations of the complaint can best be resolved in the consolidated proceeding in dockets Nos. 16928, et al. The Commission's reference to the consolidated proceeding as an adequate forum in which to ascertain the relevant facts was expressly limited to Better T.V.'s request "that a general investigation and hearing be instituted" concerning alleged unlawful anticompetitive pole-line attachment practices and antitrust violations of Telco and American Telephone & Telegraph Co. 3 Oppositions to the petition for reconsideration were filed on May 28, 1969, by the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, by the Chief. CATV Task Force, and by Better T.V., Inc. With respect to the joint motion for consolidated hearing. Telco and American Telephone & Telegraph Co., each filed an opposition on June 10, 1969; and, as set forth above, Dimension Cable filed comments in partial opposition to the joint motion. On June 23, 1969, a reply pleading was filed jointly by the Bureau and the CATV Task Force. WEOK Cablevision, Inc., filed a pleading on June 11, 1969, which combines a response to the joint motion for consolidation with a request for enlargement of issues addressed to the Review Board. Since such a combined pleading violates section 1.44 of the rules, it has been given no consideration in the disposition of this matter. |