F.C.C. 69-298 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In re Application of E. H. CRAVEN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO For Review of Dismissal of Application MARCH 26, 1969. MR. E. H. CRAVEN, 6201 Mossman Place, NE.. Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87110. DEAR MR. CRAVEN: This refers to your letter received on December 23, 1968 requesting that the Commission review its action of November 20, 1968 dismissing the application of KARA, Inc. for renewal of license of station KARA, Albuquerque, N. Mex., and deleting the station's call letters. In your request for review, you present no new facts. Rather, you ask the Commission to reinstate the license of station KARA so that control could be transferred to a creditor of the licensee, Mr. Tom Bolich, and thereafter to you, through a lease option-to-purchase agreement between you and Bolich. You term the license a contingent asset pledged by the licensee to guarantee repayment of debt to Mr. Bolich, and state that the previously proposed transfer should be looked upon as the equivalent of a foreclosure; you appear to assume that the Commission could have forced the principal stockholder, Mr. John Gallagher, to transfer control of the station to Mr. Bolich. In acting on renewal applications, the Commission considers the record of the party responsible to the Commission for the operation of the station, i.e. the licensee. Here the station had been silent for 6 months and the principal stockholder, Mr. Gallagher did not intend to resume the operation of the station. Upon consideration of this record, the Commission was unable to determine that a further delay in activation of the station was justified, and dismissed the renewal application and deleted the call letters. You have not convinced us that the public interest would be served by reinstatement of the license. Indeed, we fail to see how reinstatement would benefit you or Mr. Bolich in light of Mr. Gallagher's withdrawal of consent to the transfer of control to Mr. Bolich and the dismissal of the transfer application which necessarily followed. The Commission will upon proper application therefor give its consent to involuntary transfers to Executors, Administrators or court-appointed officers caused by death or legal disability. Here there was no court adjudication of the question of the licensee's indebtedness, and, in view of Mr. Gallagher's withdrawal, the Commission had no alternative but to dismiss the transfer application. Moreover, had the transfer application remained before us, the lease option-to-purchase agreement between you and Bolich could not have been approved by the Commission, because it violated sections 301, 304, 309 (h) and 310(b) of the Communications Act of 1934. Having considered your request in light of the foregoing, the Commission affirms its action of November 20, 1968 dismissing the renewal application for station KARA, Albuquerque, and deleting the call letters. Commissioner Robert E. Lee absent. BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, F.C.C. 69-316 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION In the matter of WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FREQUENCY 152.480 ORDER (Adopted April 2, 1969) BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER WADSWORTH ABSENT; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 1. The Commission, by memorandum opinion and order, F.C.C. 69-315, released this date, has authorized the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., among other things, to continue to operate in Washington, D.C. its common carrier radio paging system, commonly known as Bellboy, on the frequency 152.486 mc./s. until November 30, 1969. This frequency is only 6 kc./s. removed from the frequency 152.480 mc./s. which has been allocated for private radio systems. See report and order in docket No. 16777, released on August 16, 1967, F.C.C. 67-958, 9 F.C.C. 2d 666. To avoid conflict between the Bellboy system and potential private systems, the Commission by its memorandum opinion and order released on May 13, 1968, in docket No. 16777 delayed the availability of the frequency 152.480 mc./s. for private operations in the Washington, D.C. area until January 31, 1969, F.C.C. 68-518, 33 F.R. 7271. 2. In view of the foregoing, we believe that the availability of the frequency 152.480 mc./s. for private systems should be delayed further. 3. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the frequency 152.480 mc./s. will not be available for assignment within 75 miles from the center of Washington, D.C. until November 30, 1969. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 17 F.C.C. 2d F.C.C. 69-306 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (FORMERLY CALIFORNIA WATER & TELEPHONE Co.), THE ASSOCIATED BELL SYSTEM COMPANIES, THE GENERAL TELEPHONE SYSTEM, AND UNITED UTILITIES. INC. COMPANIES Applicability of section 214 of the Communications Act With Regard to Tariffs for Channel Service for Use by Community Antenna Television Sys tems Docket No. 17333 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Adopted April 2, 1969) BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER ROBERT E. LEE DISSENTING; COMMISSIONER WADSWORTH ABSENT. 1. In the decision in this proceeding (13 F.C.C. 2d 448), the Commission directed the respondent telephone companies to cease and desist from the further construction of any facilities for the purpose of providing channel service to CATV systems until an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been filed pursuant to section 214 of the Communications act and approval therefore is obtained from the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission held in a memorandum opinion and order (F.C.C. 68-715), released July 5, 1968, that the installation of drops to the premises of CATV subscribers located within the areas where trunk and feeder lines were in operation on or before the release date of the decision (June 26, 1968) is not prohibited. 2. On November 1, 1968, TelePrompTer Corp. & Manhattan TV Cable Services filed a pleading entitled joint petition for enforcement of cease and desist order. Therein petitioners allege that New York Telephone extended its distribution cable and made new penetrations of unserved buildings subsequent to June 26, 1968, without first obtaining section 214 certification; and that by such construction, the carrier is upsetting the status quo which the Commission intended to preserve during the pendency of the judicial appeals from the Commission's decision. Petitioners assert that by reason of such conduct Bell and its affiliate, New York Telephone Co., are in violation of the Commission's cease and desist orders. 3. New York Telephone categorically denies that it has engaged in any construction in New York City in violation of the cease and desist order in this docketed proceeding. It states that after June 26, 1968, cable extensions were provided without obtaining section 214 certification where the purpose was to serve many patrons in a multiple dwelling, and that it constructed facilities which involved a channel termination off existing distribution facilities, from a terminal in an adjacent building. However, it insists that such cable extensions are not within the contemplation of the Commission's cease and desist orders. 4. On December 18, 1968, the Commission requested that New York Telephone submit further information concerning the nature and extent of any construction involved in providing cable extensions or channel terminations after June 26, 1968, to Comtel, Inc., its CATV customer. In a response thereto filed January 3, 1969, New York Telephone advised that channel terminations were provided to Comtel after June 26, 1968, at only four locations; and that in each case the new channel termination was provided from a terminal constructed before June 26, 1968. It explained that the method used in engineering these facilities is to enter a block by an underground conduit from a manhole in the street to one building and other buildings on the block are served by running cable through basements or along back walls or fences. By keeping the number of underground subsidiary conduits to a minimum, a considerable saving is effected in construction costs, and the repeated disturbance of traffic and of the pavement in the street is avoided. With respect to each of the four locations under consideration, New York Telephone asserts that the initial penetration of the block occurred prior to June 26, 1968, and that no construction in the street took place after that date. 5. From our examination of the pleadings filed, it appears that there is no dispute as to the relevant and pertinent facts, but only as to whether the facts establish a violation of our cease and desist orders. We conclude that no violation has been shown. No new streets have been traversed by construction carried out since June 26, 1968. The installation of cable from one building to an adjoining or nearby building within a block does not involve the type of construction contemplated by our cease and desist orders. Consequently, no basis exists for the institution of enforcement proceedings or the imposition of penalties against New York Telephone Co. 6. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the joint petition filed by TelePrompTer Corp. & Manhattan TV Cable Services on November 1, 1968, is denied. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 17 F.C.C. 2d |