(original) (raw)

%PDF-1.2 %�� 10 0 obj << /Length 11 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 727.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 98.88 -14.04 TD /F1 12 Tf (COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS) Tj 241.44 0 TD ( ) Tj -290.88 -13.8 TD (DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ENERGY) Tj 340.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -259.32 -13.8 TD (CABLE TELEVISION DIVISION) Tj 178.32 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -89.16 -13.56 TD ( ) Tj 0 -14.04 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj -219.6 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf (_________________________________________) Tj 246 0 TD ( ) Tj -246 -13.8 TD (MediaOne of Massachusetts, Inc.,) Tj 162.72 0 TD ( ) Tj 17.28 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD (MediaOne Group, Inc., and AT&T Corp.,) Tj 199.92 0 TD ( ) Tj 16.08 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Appellants,) Tj 54.96 0 TD ( ) Tj 17.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (v.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj 32.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (CTV 99) Tj 39 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (2; CTV 99) Tj 51.36 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (3;) Tj 9.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -431.64 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj 32.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (CTV 99) Tj 39 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (4; CTV 99) Tj 51.36 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (5) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -428.28 -13.8 TD (Board of Selectmen of the Town of North ) Tj 203.52 0 TD ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD (Andover, Mayor of the City of Quincy, City ) Tj 213.72 0 TD ( ) Tj 2.28 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD (Manager of the City of Cambridge, and the ) Tj 209.4 0 TD ( ) Tj 6.6 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD (Mayor of the City of Somerville,) Tj 157.2 0 TD ( ) Tj 22.8 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Appellees.) Tj 50.88 0 TD ( ) Tj 21.12 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\)) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -255.96 -13.8 TD (__________________________________________\)) Tj 255.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -36.36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -14.04 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj -170.88 -13.8 TD (JOINT OPPOSITION OF TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, CITY) Tj 341.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -365.4 -13.8 TD (OF QUINCY, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND CITY OF SOMERVILLE TO ) Tj 391.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -351.36 -13.8 TD (APPELLANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DECISIONS) Tj ET 152.04 255.24 307.8 1.2 re f BT 459.84 257.76 TD ( ) Tj -373.44 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 11 0 obj 3183 endobj 4 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 10 0 R >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Length 14 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 726.96 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 173.88 0 TD /F1 12 Tf (TABLE OF CONTENTS) Tj 129.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -303.36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 238.56 0 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj -238.56 -13.92 TD ( ) Tj 238.56 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 175.92 0 TD /F1 12 Tf (Page) Tj 24.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -438.96 -23.4 TD ( ) Tj 0 -33.6 TD 0.02 Tc (Introduction) Tj 60.6 0 TD 0 Tc (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...........................) Tj 81.36 0 TD (1) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD 0.012 Tc 0.018 Tw (Procedural Background of the Cases) Tj 177.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (....................) Tj 60.36 0 TD (6) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (A.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD 0.0111 Tc 0.0039 Tw (The MediaOne/AT&T Merger and Application for Change in Control) Tj 336.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (...................) Tj 57.36 0 TD (6) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (B.) Tj 10.92 0 TD ( ) Tj 25.08 0 TD 0.015 Tc -0.015 Tw (Regional Hearings) Tj 90.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.....) Tj 15.36 0 TD (6) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (C.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.96 0 TD 0.0142 Tc 0.0158 Tw (AT&T/MediaOne Presented Its Open Access Position In Public Hearings) Tj 354.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.............) Tj 39.36 0 TD (8) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (D.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD 0.0057 Tc 0.0903 Tw (The Issuing Authorities' Hearings and Decisions) Tj 234.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...................) Tj 57.36 0 TD (11) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (1.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD 0.02 Tc -0.02 Tw (The City of Cambridge) Tj 111.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (............................) Tj 84.36 0 TD (11) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (The Ci) Tj 33 0 TD 0.048 Tc -0.048 Tw (ty of Quincy) Tj 60.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (..) Tj 6.36 0 TD (12) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (3.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD 0.0114 Tc -0.0114 Tw (The Town of North Andover) Tj 141.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (..................) Tj 54.36 0 TD (13) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (4.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (The City of Somerville ) Tj 5.28 Tc (\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205\205) Tj 0 Tc (...13) Tj 398.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -434.64 -19.8 TD (E.) Tj 10.32 0 TD ( ) Tj 25.68 0 TD 0.0185 Tc -0.0185 Tw (AT&T's Appeals) Tj 84.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.....) Tj 15.36 0 TD (15) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD 0.0176 Tc 0.0274 Tw (The Open Access Issue Is Central To These Appeals) Tj 252.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.........................) Tj 75.36 0 TD (16) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (A.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD 0.0171 Tc 0.0129 Tw (Open Access on Broadband ) Tj 136.68 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD 0.01 Tc -0.01 Tw ( This is the Way) Tj 78.96 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (........................) Tj 72.36 0 TD (16) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (B.) Tj 10.92 0 TD ( ) Tj 25.08 0 TD 0.015 Tc 0.045 Tw (The Importance Of Open Acces) Tj 153.12 0 TD 0.033 Tw (s In The Current Cable Debate) Tj 147.48 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.............................) Tj 87.36 0 TD (17) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (C.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.96 0 TD 0.0104 Tc 0.0046 Tw (Denial of Open Access Is Harmful to Robust Competition) Tj 279.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (....) Tj 12.36 0 TD (18) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (D.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD 0.0057 Tc 0.0543 Tw (The Portland Litigation) Tj 114.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...........................) Tj 81.36 0 TD (19) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (E.) Tj 10.32 0 TD ( ) Tj 25.68 0 TD 0.0167 Tc -0.0167 Tw (AT&T's Recent Commitment To "Open Access") Tj 234.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...................) Tj 57.36 0 TD (19) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (1.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD 0.016 Tc -0.016 Tw (AT&T's December 6 Promise to the FCC) Tj 201.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (..............................) Tj 90.36 0 TD (19) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD 0.0225 Tc 0.0975 Tw ("Open Access Lite") Tj 96.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.) Tj 3.36 0 TD (20) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (3.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (AT&T Should N) Tj 81.24 0 TD 0.0109 Tc -0.0109 Tw (ot Be Permitted To Dictate the Timeline) Tj 195.36 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.....) Tj 15.36 0 TD (22) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD 0.015 Tc (Argument) Tj 51.6 0 TD 0 Tc (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (............................) Tj 84.36 0 TD (23) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (A.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD 0.0092 Tc 0.0593 Tw (The Summary Decision Standard Has Not Been Met) Tj 252.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.............) Tj 39.36 0 TD (23) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (B. ) Tj 13.92 0 TD ( ) Tj 22.08 0 TD (Application of the Regulations to Exclude Consideration of Open Access ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0.0083 Tc -0.0083 Tw (Exceeds the Division's Authority) Tj 159.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (............) Tj 36.36 0 TD (27) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (1.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (If applied to preclude considerati) Tj 158.04 0 TD (on of open access, the regulations as ) Tj -158.04 -13.8 TD 0.0162 Tc -0.0012 Tw (applied are contrary to Congressional intent and federal law) Tj 288.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.) Tj 3.36 0 TD (27) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (The regulations as applied are inconsistent with the purposes of G.L. c. ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (166A) Tj 27.6 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (........................) Tj 72.36 0 TD (30) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (C.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.96 0 TD (The Division Should Waive Regulation 4.04 For Consideration Of Ope) Tj 342.36 0 TD (n ) Tj -342.36 -13.8 TD 0.0133 Tc 0.0767 Tw (Access In The Transfer Decision) Tj 159.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (............) Tj 36.36 0 TD (33) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 1 1 1 rg 283.08 18 36 17.76 re f q 290.28 21.48 3.96 10.68 re h W n BT 290.28 21.36 TD 0 0 0 rg (-) Tj ET Q q 294.24 21.48 3.36 10.68 re h W n BT 294.24 21.36 TD 0 0 0 rg (i) Tj ET Q q 297.6 21.48 3.96 10.68 re h W n BT 297.6 21.36 TD 0 0 0 rg (-) Tj ET Q q 301.56 21.48 5.4 10.68 re h W n BT 301.56 21.36 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj ET Q endstream endobj 14 0 obj 8166 endobj 12 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 13 0 R >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Length 17 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 726.96 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 173.88 0 TD /F1 12 Tf (TABLE OF CONTENTS) Tj 129.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -303.36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 238.56 0 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj -238.56 -13.92 TD ( ) Tj 238.56 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 175.92 0 TD /F1 12 Tf (Page) Tj 24.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -438.96 -23.4 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (1. ) Tj 15 0 TD ( ) Tj 21 0 TD (The negative effects on competition of this transfer justify the waiver of ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (Regulation 4.04) Tj 78.6 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (.......) Tj 21.36 0 TD (33) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (AT&T received sufficient notice and opportunity to address the issue of ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0.012 Tc -0.012 Tw (open access) Tj 57.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (..............) Tj 42.36 0 TD (35) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (D.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (Regulation 4.04 Substantia) Tj 129.6 0 TD (lly Impairs the Issuing Authorities' Contractual ) Tj -129.6 -13.8 TD (Rights) Tj 33.6 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (......................) Tj 66.36 0 TD (37) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (E.) Tj 10.32 0 TD ( ) Tj 25.68 0 TD 0.008 Tc -0.008 Tw (Regulation 4.04 Should Not Be Applied Retroactively) Tj 261.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (..........) Tj 30.36 0 TD (39) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (F.) Tj 9.6 0 TD ( ) Tj 26.4 0 TD (Conditional approval is an appropriate exercise of the Issuing Authorities' ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (pre) Tj 15.24 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD 0.0092 Tc 0.0148 Tw (existing rights under the license agreements) Tj 212.4 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (....................) Tj 60.36 0 TD (41) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (G.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (Failu) Tj 24.6 0 TD (re to Provide Open Access Involves Appellant's Legal Ability and ) Tj -24.6 -13.8 TD (Technical Expertise to Operate the Cable System under the Existing ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0.03 Tc (License.) Tj 42.6 0 TD 0 Tc (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...................) Tj 57.36 0 TD (42) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD 0.024 Tc -0.024 Tw (1. AT&T's legal ability) Tj 111.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (........) Tj 24.36 0 TD (42) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (a. ) Tj 11.28 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.72 0 TD (The Issuing Authorities retain the power provided by federal legislation to ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (promo) Tj 31.32 0 TD (te competition) Tj 71.28 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...............................) Tj 93.36 0 TD (42) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (b. ) Tj 15 0 TD ( ) Tj 21 0 TD (AT&T's failure to provide open access adversely affects competition and ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0.0033 Tc -0.0033 Tw (implicates restraint of trade provisions) Tj 186.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...) Tj 9.36 0 TD (43) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD ( AT&T does not maintain or is unwilling to utilize the technical expertise to ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0.008 Tc -0.008 Tw (perform this contract in a lawful ma) Tj 172.56 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (nner.) Tj 26.04 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (...............................) Tj 93.36 0 TD (45) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (3. ) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj 24 0 TD (Cambridge's denial based upon the additional consideration of the ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (transferee's lack of management experience and failure to adhere to the ) Tj T* 0.0197 Tc -0.0064 Tw (existing license is appropriate grounds for denying AT&T's transfer request.) Tj 366.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.......) Tj 21.36 0 TD (48) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD (Conclusion) Tj 57.6 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (................................) Tj 96 0 TD (..........................) Tj 78.36 0 TD (52) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.96 -19.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj ET 1 1 1 rg 283.08 18 54 17.76 re f BT 290.28 21 TD 0 0 0 rg (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (ii) Tj 6.72 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 17 0 obj 4874 endobj 15 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 16 0 R >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Length 20 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -706.2 TD ( ) Tj 219.6 670.2 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj 0 -14.04 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj -170.88 -13.8 TD (JOINT OPPOSITION OF TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, CITY) Tj 341.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -365.4 -13.8 TD (OF QUINCY, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND CITY OF SOMERVILLE TO ) Tj 391.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -351.36 -13.8 TD (APPELLANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DECISIONS) Tj ET 152.04 582.24 307.8 1.2 re f BT 459.84 584.76 TD ( ) Tj -153.84 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj -219.6 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 219.6 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -38.4 -14.04 TD /F1 12 Tf (I) Tj 4.68 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0021 Tc (NTRODUCTION) Tj 72.12 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -258 -27.36 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Town of North Andover, the City of Quincy, the City of Cambridge, and t) Tj 376.08 0 TD (he ) Tj -412.08 -27.6 TD (City of Somerville \(collectively the "Issuing Authorities" or "Appellees"\) oppose the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Motions for Summary Decision that MediaOne of Massachusetts, Inc., MediaOne Group, ) Tj T* (Inc. \(collectively "MediaOne"\) and AT&T Corp. \("AT&T"\) \(collectively, the "Appellees) Tj 425.28 0 TD ("\) ) Tj -425.28 -27.6 TD (have filed in each of the above referenced matters pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01\(h\).) Tj 386.76 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (1) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -390.84 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (To obtain summary decision, Appellants maintain the burden of establishing that ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (the facts and law at issue are undisputed to the extent that the papers filed show that a ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 145.92 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 143.4 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (1) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0042 Tc 0.0258 Tw ( The Issuing Authorities have moved that the Division consolidate the above captioned appeals in a single ) Tj -3.24 -11.4 TD -0.0073 Tc 0.0373 Tw (proceeding or hearing given the common factual and legal issues that the Division must review in) Tj 388.2 0 TD 0.0282 Tc 0.0018 Tw ( each ) Tj -388.2 -11.52 TD -0.0034 Tc 0.0334 Tw (matter. The fact that the Appellee's memoranda in support of its motions for summary disposition are ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD 0.0105 Tc 0.0195 Tw (virtually identical in each of the four cases further amplifies the need for and propriety of a consolidated ) Tj ET endstream endobj 20 0 obj 2551 endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 19 0 R >> endobj 22 0 obj << /Length 23 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (2) Tj -216.6 653.04 TD (h) Tj 6 0 TD (earing can serve no useful purpose. The record before the Division demonstrates, ) Tj -6 -27.6 TD (however, that not only are there significant issues of material fact and law but also that ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (these facts and the law weigh heavily in favor of Division approval of the Issuing ) Tj T* (Authorities' transfer decisions.) Tj 146.16 0 TD ( ) Tj -146.16 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (As explained below, the decisions by the Issuing Authorities were each an ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (appropriate exercise of the power granted them by federal legislation and consented to by ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the Massachusetts Legislature to promote competition in th) Tj 283.8 0 TD (e field of cable services and for ) Tj -283.8 -27.6 TD (the purpose of protecting consumers. To the extent that the Division regulations are ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (interpreted narrowly to preclude consideration of the requirement of open access, and the ) Tj T* (Division does not waive application to accommo) Tj 234.48 0 TD (date such consideration, the regulations ) Tj -234.48 -27.6 TD (are inconsistent with the applicable federal and Massachusetts statutes and must be found ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (invalid. ) Tj 42.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -42.36 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Finally, the application of the regulations to preclude consideration of open access ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (is contrary to the contractu) Tj 128.04 0 TD (al rights reserved to Cambridge, Somerville, and North Andover ) Tj -128.04 -27.6 TD (under their respective franchise agreements. To so impair these contracts would violate ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (constitutional protections and inappropriately apply later enacted regulations retroactively. ) Tj T* (For all o) Tj 40.56 0 TD (f these reasons, the Division must allow for the Issuing Authorities' consideration ) Tj -40.56 -27.6 TD (of open access in the transfer decision. ) Tj 197.16 0 TD ( ) Tj -197.16 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The above captioned appeals all revolve around AT&T's claim that the cable wire ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (franchises it is absorbing entitle it to becom) Tj 209.4 0 TD (e an unconstrained master of a constricting ) Tj -209.4 -27.6 TD (bottleneck in the Internet. The immediate concern of supporters of open access is AT&T's ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (forced bundling of its preferred and captive ISP with its wire franchise. But what is more ) Tj 0 -31.56 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 100.56 439.2 0.6 re f BT 525.6 98.04 TD ( ) Tj -439.2 -12 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.014 Tc 0.016 Tw (hearing. Accordingly, for the convenie) Tj 156.6 0 TD -0.0148 Tc 0.0448 Tw (nce of the Division, the Issuing Authorities submit this Joint ) Tj -156.6 -11.52 TD 0.0028 Tc 0.0272 Tw (Opposition in response to the Appellee's separate motions for summary decision.) Tj 322.2 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 23 0 obj 3217 endobj 21 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 22 0 R >> endobj 25 0 obj << /Length 26 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (3) Tj -216.6 653.04 TD (broadly at risk is the very in) Tj 133.8 0 TD (tegrity of the Internet's design. Since 1975, when the ) Tj -133.8 -27.6 TD (architecture of the current Internet was laid out, the numbers of users has increased by ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (nearly a millionfold; the power of computers has increased by 1000 times while their cost ) Tj T* (has dropped to one th) Tj 103.2 0 TD (ousandth; the communications links that make up the network have ) Tj -103.2 -27.6 TD (increased in speed by a million times; and the Internet is being used in ways completely ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (undreamed of at the time of its design. As Massachusetts Institute of Technology ) Tj T* (Computer Science Pro) Tj 107.88 0 TD (fessor Jerome Saltzer lucidly explains, "[t]his remarkable evolution ) Tj -107.88 -27.6 TD (and adaptation has been made possible by one simple design principle, called the End) Tj 410.28 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (to) Tj 9.36 0 TD (-) Tj -423.6 -27.6 TD (End argument. The End) Tj 117.36 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (to) Tj 9.36 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (End argument says 'don't force any service, feature, or ) Tj -134.64 -27.6 TD (restriction on th) Tj 75.96 0 TD (e customer.'" ) Tj -75.96 -27.6 TD () Tj 311.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -311.76 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Issuing Authorities either denied or conditionally approved AT&T's FCC Form ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (394 transfer requests that AT&T filed in connection with its takeover of MediaOne, the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (largest supp) Tj 57.48 0 TD (lier of cable television services in the Commonwealth. Each of the Issuing ) Tj -57.48 -27.6 TD (Authorities relied upon AT&T's refusal to permit open access to its broadband network as ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (one basis for their respective decisions. AT&T now seeks a lightning fast decision from ) Tj T* (th) Tj 9.36 0 TD (e Division on this important public policy issue that will preserve or enhance AT&T's ) Tj -9.36 -27.6 TD (emerging monopoly in the market for high speed Internet connections in this state and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (around the country. AT&T has not met its burden with regard to summary disposition.) Tj 416.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -416.76 -27.6 TD (The Issuing Authorities were within their legal rights in considering open access and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (concluding that the transfer must allow for open access. ) Tj 270 0 TD ( ) Tj -270 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T's request for summary disposition is further undermined by its ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (announcement on December 6, \(made after t) Tj 213 0 TD (hese appeals were filed\) that AT&T will ) Tj ET endstream endobj 26 0 obj 2831 endobj 24 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 25 0 R >> endobj 29 0 obj << /Length 30 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (4) Tj -216.6 653.04 TD (provide some form of open access to its developing cable broadband empire in the year ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (2002. While vague and non) Tj 135.12 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (binding, this announcement belies AT&T's consistent and ) Tj -139.08 -27.6 TD (repeated testimony in public hearings across Ma) Tj 231.12 0 TD (ssachusetts that open access was ) Tj -231.12 -27.6 TD (technically impossible, economically infeasible to implement and contrary to the interests ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (of the consumers. AT&T has now conceded the reasonableness of the Issuing Authorities' ) Tj T* (open access conditions.) Tj 112.8 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (2) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( Accordingly, any a) Tj 96.6 0 TD (ttempt by AT&T to summarily dispose of this ) Tj -213.48 -27.6 TD (action must itself be summarily dismissed.) Tj 204.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -204.36 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Summary disposition is also inappropriate given the transformative nature of these ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (transfer proceedings. The Issuing Authorities all granted initial licenses to cable ) Tj 388.44 0 TD (television ) Tj -388.44 -27.6 TD (suppliers to establish community antennas and cable networks through the streets of each ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (community so that the residents in each municipality would have better access to television ) Tj T* (programming. Technology now permits this access to be transform) Tj 323.52 0 TD (ed from a connection to ) Tj -323.52 -27.6 TD (a community television antenna into a pipeline for the Internet. The subject of each of the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (licenses for each Issuing Authority and the range of activities to which each license now ) Tj T* (relates is expanding to embrace all aspects of di) Tj 228.84 0 TD (gital commerce and culture. In this new ) Tj -228.84 -27.6 TD (landscape of communication technology speed is everything and the broadband cable ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (network that AT&T will acquire represents the fastest Internet connection available to ) Tj T* (consumers in Massachusetts. AT&T's broadband ) Tj 240.6 0 TD (cable empire in this state and around the ) Tj -240.6 -27.6 TD (nation will permit AT&T to constrain this new medium as it constrained growth and ) Tj 0 -45.36 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 169.56 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 167.04 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (2) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0114 Tc 0.0186 Tw ( AT&T's belated acknowledgement of the feasibility and desirability of open access raises serious concerns ) Tj -3.24 -11.52 TD 0.0602 Tc 0 Tw (regar) Tj 20.52 0 TD 0.0058 Tc 0.0242 Tw (ding its contrary representations to scores of Massachusetts communities and their reliance on AT&T's ) Tj -20.52 -11.52 TD -0 Tc 0.03 Tw (assertions, and threats, in ultimately declining to impose open access conditions. This Division should be ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD 0.0211 Tc 0.0089 Tw (troubled by AT&T's conduct and consider a mecha) Tj 203.64 0 TD -0.0026 Tc 0.0326 Tw (nism to allow reconsideration of this issue by additional ) Tj -203.64 -11.52 TD -0.0036 Tc 0.0336 Tw (cities and towns. The Division should note that several communities, including Brockton, South Hadley, ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD 0.0028 Tc 0.0272 Tw (South Deerfield, Chatham, Pelham, Amherst, Montague, Greenfield, and Burlington, attached rese) Tj 392.76 0 TD -0.0018 Tc 0.0318 Tw (rvations of ) Tj -392.76 -11.4 TD 0.0079 Tc 0.0221 Tw (rights to their transfer decision in an attempt to express their desire for open access in the face of AT&T's ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD 0 Tc 0.0293 Tw (threats and now abandoned arguments.) Tj 154.92 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 30 0 obj 3887 endobj 27 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 28 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 29 0 R >> endobj 32 0 obj << /Length 33 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (5) Tj -216.6 653.04 TD (innovation on the telephone network prior to government action that broke up AT&T's ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (telephone monopoly. It has been on an open telep) Tj 237.36 0 TD (hone network that the Internet has grown.) Tj 199.56 0 TD ( ) Tj -436.92 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T is rapidly establishing a national broadband network for Internet connection. ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (If AT&T is permitted to maintain unfettered power to discriminate among providers, it will ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (alter for virtually every consumer the) Tj 177.84 0 TD ( open "end to end" architecture of the Internet. The ) Tj -177.84 -27.6 TD (Internet has thrived on "open access" to date. Permitting AT&T to alter that landscape by ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (bundling its own ISP as mandatory service and discriminating against other, non) Tj 385.44 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (affiliated ) Tj -389.4 -27.6 TD (providers that seek ) Tj 93.48 0 TD (access to the cable pipeline will inevitably stifle competition and ) Tj -93.48 -27.6 TD (innovation.) Tj 54.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -54.36 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Because there are genuine issues of fact and law that the Division can only decide ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (after a full evidentiary hearing and additional briefing, and because the issue of open ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (acce) Tj 21.12 0 TD (ss to the Appellees' cable broadband network is of extraordinary importance to the ) Tj -21.12 -27.6 TD (Issuing Authorities, consumers and providers throughout the Commonwealth, and to the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Internet community at large, the Division cannot render a decision in these matters simp) Tj 422.04 0 TD (ly ) Tj -422.04 -27.6 TD (by laying hands upon the record developed in the public hearings and reliance upon the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (summary disposition papers. In all events, the law cited herein and the record in each case ) Tj T* (demonstrate that the Issuing Authorities' decisions to deny or conditiona) Tj 346.08 0 TD (lly approve ) Tj -346.08 -27.6 TD (AT&T's FCC Form 394 transfer requests were reasonable and appropriate on the facts and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (under applicable legal standards. Accordingly, as more fully set forth below, the Division ) Tj T* (should deny the Appellees' motions for summary disposition in eac) Tj 321.48 0 TD (h case and hear ) Tj -321.48 -27.6 TD (evidence and argument with respect to the propriety of the Issuing Authorities' decisions.) Tj 426.24 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 33 0 obj 2631 endobj 31 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 28 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 32 0 R >> endobj 35 0 obj << /Length 36 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (6) Tj -104.28 652.8 TD /F1 12 Tf (P) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf 0.0032 Tc 0.0268 Tw (ROCEDURAL ) Tj 63.48 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (B) Tj 8.04 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0 Tc 0.0305 Tw (ACKGROUND OF THE ) Tj 103.32 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (C) Tj 8.64 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0087 Tc (ASES) Tj 23.76 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -326.76 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (This matter involves the independent determination of the Issuing Authorities to ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (deny or to conditionally ) Tj 117.24 0 TD (grant AT&T's FCC Form 394 requests to transfer the cable ) Tj -117.24 -27.6 TD (television license of each Issuing Authority in connection with AT&T's acquisition of ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (MediaOne and MediaOne's various subsidiary companies.) Tj 278.52 0 TD ( ) Tj -278.52 -27.84 TD /F1 12 Tf (A.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (The MediaOne/AT&T Merger and Application for Change in C) Tj 327.48 0 TD (ontrol) Tj 31.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -394.8 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (On or about July 13, 1999, AT&T simultaneously filed an application for approval ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (of a change in control \(FCC Form 394, with exhibits\) with the 175 cities and towns in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Massachusetts that have granted cable television licenses to MediaOne. Und) Tj 368.88 0 TD (er federal and ) Tj -368.88 -27.6 TD (state law, as well as under the individual franchise agreements, the Issuing Authorities ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (determine after a hearing whether the proposed transfer should be approved. Applicable ) Tj T* (regulations of the Division would have required all 175 towns to) Tj 309.6 0 TD ( conduct hearings with ) Tj -309.6 -27.6 TD (respect to the transfer of the subject cable licenses within sixty days of AT&T's July 13, ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (1999 filing. In response to these unique circumstances, the Division agreed, to ) Tj T* (AT&T/MediaOne's request to conduct optional regional hearings) Tj 311.88 0 TD ( throughout the ) Tj -311.88 -27.6 TD (Commonwealth for the benefit of the subject cities and towns. ) Tj 301.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -301.32 -27.84 TD /F1 12 Tf (B.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.96 0 TD (Regional Hearings) Tj 95.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -131.04 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Division informed all 175 communities that the Division had granted the ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (request of AT&T/MediaOne for regional hearings and that such hearings wer) Tj 369.96 0 TD (e being ) Tj -369.96 -27.6 TD (scheduled.) Tj 50.88 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (3) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( The Division informed each community that the Division would hold eleven ) Tj -54.96 -27.6 TD (regional hearings and further informed the communities that each issuing authority, ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (including those who participate in the regional hearings, must ultimately cons) Tj 372 0 TD (ider the ) Tj -372 -31.56 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 100.56 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 98.04 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (3) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0013 Tc 0.0287 Tw ( Appellees note that there is no mention regarding the source of the Division's authority to sch) Tj 374.28 0 TD 0.0198 Tc 0.0102 Tw (edule regional ) Tj -377.52 -11.52 TD 0.0081 Tc 0.0219 Tw (hearings for the purpose of bypassing individual hearings. ) Tj 238.56 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 36 0 obj 3569 endobj 34 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 28 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 35 0 R >> endobj 38 0 obj << /Length 39 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (7) Tj -216.6 653.04 TD (application and make a decision on whether to approve the transfer on its own.) Tj 377.28 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (4) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (See) Tj ET 470.76 707.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 488.04 709.2 TD ( Cable ) Tj -401.64 -27.6 TD (Division Transfer Bulletin 99) Tj 141.48 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (4 \(June 28, 199\) attached as Exhibit A.) Tj 186.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -332.4 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Division appointed Charles J. Beard as the Special Magistrate for the eleven ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (regio) Tj 24.48 0 TD (nal hearings. Following the completion of the regional hearings, Magistrate Beard ) Tj -24.48 -27.6 TD (issued a twenty page Summary of Proceedings and Magistrate's Report dated September ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (24, 1999 \(the "Magistrate's Report"\) containing a set of ) Tj 267.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (non) Tj 18 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (binding) Tj 36.72 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( findings and ) Tj -326.4 -27.6 TD (recomme) Tj 44.52 0 TD (ndations on issues that the Division had specified in the June 28, 1999 Transfer ) Tj -44.52 -27.6 TD (Bulletin. ) Tj 47.64 0 TD (See) Tj ET 134.04 514.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 151.32 516 TD ( Magistrate's Report at 1, attached as Exhibit B.) Tj 228.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -293.28 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Magistrate Beard considered the scope of his charge to be focused on a narrow ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (interpretation of the four crite) Tj 142.32 0 TD (ria set forth in 207 CMR 4.04 ) Tj 145.32 0 TD ( the consideration of the ) Tj -287.64 -27.6 TD (transferee's \(a\) management experience; \(b\) technical expertise; \(c\) financial capability; ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (and \(d\) legal ability to operate a cable system under the existing license. ) Tj 350.88 0 TD (See) Tj ET 437.28 403.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 454.56 405.6 TD ( Magistrate's ) Tj -368.16 -27.6 TD (Report at 2. ) Tj 62.28 0 TD (It is important to note, however, that Magistrate Beard acknowledged that this ) Tj -62.28 -27.6 TD (narrow interpretation was based upon Division regulations and decisions that had yet to be ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (challenged to any court in the Commonwealth. ) Tj 230.28 0 TD (See) Tj ET 316.68 320.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 333.96 322.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 336.96 320.88 12.36 0.6 re f BT 349.32 322.8 TD ( ) Tj -262.92 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Magistrate Beard firmly acknowl) Tj 158.76 0 TD (edged the importance of what he characterized as ) Tj -194.76 -27.6 TD ("public policy" issues in the context of the transfer of MediaOne's cable television ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (monopoly to AT&T. The Magistrate's Report states, in pertinent part:) Tj 335.88 0 TD ( ) Tj -263.88 -27.6 TD (It is clear from the record in this proceeding that ) Tj 234.48 0 TD (the transfer ) Tj -234.48 -13.8 TD (of MediaOne's licenses to AT&T is an event far different ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (from the hundreds, if not thousands, of license transfers that ) Tj T* (have taken place to date in the Commonwealth. Never ) Tj T* (before has a company as large and as diversified as AT&T, ) Tj T* (and with so ) Tj 58.32 0 TD (many plans for transforming the delivery of ) Tj -58.32 -13.8 TD (cable services, sought to enter the Massachusetts cable ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (market.) Tj 36.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -108.24 -17.76 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 100.56 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 98.04 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (4) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0138 Tc 0.0162 Tw ( Under federal law, a failure to render a decision within 120 days is deemed an approval. 47 C.F.R. ) Tj -3.24 -11.52 TD 0.0567 Tc 0 Tw (\24776.502\(c\).) Tj 46.44 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 39 0 obj 3887 endobj 37 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 28 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 38 0 R >> endobj 43 0 obj << /Length 44 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (8) Tj -144.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (The transfer obviously raises a host of public policy ) Tj T* (questions. I was charged with the duty of helping cities and ) Tj T* (towns assess whether AT&T has t) Tj 163.32 0 TD (he legal ability, the ) Tj -163.32 -13.8 TD (management experience, the technical expertise, and the ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (financial capability to fulfill all of the obligations under the ) Tj T* (MediaOne licenses.) Tj 94.44 0 TD ( ) Tj -94.44 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD (See) Tj ET 86.4 596.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 103.68 598.8 TD ( Magistrate's Report at page 20. Foremost among these "public policy" issues was the ) Tj -17.28 -27.6 TD (open) Tj 23.28 0 TD ( access debate. Magistrate Beard noted that "the [open access] issue has enormous ) Tj -23.28 -27.6 TD (importance as a public policy issue . . . " ) Tj 199.56 0 TD (Id.) Tj ET 285.96 541.68 12.72 0.6 re f BT 298.68 543.6 TD ( In fact, detailed testimony on the open access ) Tj -212.28 -27.6 TD (issue was presented at several of the regional hearings and was summarized i) Tj 369 0 TD (n the ) Tj -369 -27.6 TD (Magistrate's Report.) Tj 96.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -96.48 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In the end, while Magistrate Beard perceived of his role and authority to make ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (recommendations following the regional hearings as limited in scope, the Magistrate made ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (note of the fact that the acquisition of cable monopolies in) Tj 279 0 TD ( Massachusetts by AT&T is an ) Tj -279 -27.6 TD (extraordinary event with vast public policy and other considerations and that the open ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (access issue is central among them. ) Tj 175.56 0 TD (See) Tj ET 261.96 348.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 279.24 350.4 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 282.24 348.48 12.36 0.6 re f BT 294.6 350.4 TD ( at 3.) Tj 23.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -231.84 -27.84 TD /F1 12 Tf (C.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (AT&T/MediaOne Presented Its Open Access Position In Public Hearings) Tj 373.68 0 TD ( ) Tj -409.68 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Despite a p) Tj 53.88 0 TD (roposed limitation on the scope of the public hearings by Magistrate ) Tj -89.88 -27.6 TD (Beard, it became obvious that the issue of open access was to play a major role in the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (deliberations and considerations of each of the affected towns. ) Tj 304.92 0 TD (See) Tj ET 391.32 238.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 408.6 240 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 411.6 238.08 12.36 0.6 re f BT 423.96 240 TD ( In at least eight of ) Tj -337.56 -27.6 TD (the e) Tj 22.92 0 TD (leven hearings, residents and representatives of the various issuing authorities raised ) Tj -22.92 -27.6 TD (the issue of open access.) Tj 117.36 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (5) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( Throughout the hearings, the participants at the hearings ") Tj 283.68 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (raised ) Tj -405.12 -27.6 TD (important questions about whether the Road Runner service [MediaOne's capt) Tj 378 0 TD (ive Internet ) Tj -378 -27.6 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 132.12 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 129.6 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (5) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 92.16 116.04 14.4 0.48 re f BT 106.56 117.6 TD 0.0191 Tc 0.0109 Tw ( Boxford Regional Hearing \(August 4, 1999\) at 44) Tj 201.6 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0293 Tc 0 Tw (45; Barnsta) Tj 45.84 0 TD 0.0159 Tc 0.0141 Tw (ble Regional Hearing \(August 9, 1999\) at ) Tj -270.84 -11.4 TD 0.0157 Tc 0.0143 Tw (59, 69; Newton Regional Hearing \(August 10, 1999\) at 51) Tj 232.56 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0107 Tc 0.0193 Tw (52, 64; Springfield Regional Hearing \(August 11, ) Tj -235.8 -11.52 TD 0.0249 Tc 0.0051 Tw (1999\) at 42; Malden Regional Hearing \(August 31, 1999\) at 36, 59) Tj 270 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0.0108 Tw (61; Foxboro Regional Hearing ) Tj ET endstream endobj 44 0 obj 4205 endobj 42 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 28 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 43 0 R >> endobj 46 0 obj << /Length 47 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 216.6 17.16 TD (9) Tj -216.6 653.04 TD /F2 12 Tf (service provider] is being provided in a manner that will stifle competition and limit the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (growth of broadband services) Tj 143.64 0 TD /F0 12 Tf (." ) Tj 13.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 243.84 679.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 261.12 681.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 264.12 679.68 12.36 0.6 re f BT 276.48 681.6 TD ( \(emphasis supplied\).) Tj 102.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -292.32 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Notwithstanding Magistrate Beard's belief that his scope of review was restricted in ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (a man) Tj 28.92 0 TD (ner that precluded his consideration of the open access issue, the legal implications ) Tj -28.92 -27.6 TD (of a closed system were specifically addressed at the hearings. Various issuing authorities, ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (consumer groups and other interested parties presented testimony that an exc) Tj 368.28 0 TD (lusive ) Tj -368.28 -27.6 TD (arrangement between AT&T and the MediaOne Road Runner service was anti) Tj 375.48 0 TD (-) Tj -375.48 -27.6 TD (competitive, including testimony that the arrangement was likely susceptible to anti) Tj 400.44 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (trust ) Tj -404.4 -27.6 TD (challenge. ) Tj 54.72 0 TD (See) Tj ET 141.12 486.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 158.4 488.4 TD ( Weymouth Regional Hearing \(September 9, 1999\) at 67) Tj 271.44 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (68. Further, ) Tj -347.4 -27.6 TD (AT&T') Tj 34.56 0 TD (s ongoing litigation in Portland, Oregon on the open access issue was raised on ) Tj -34.56 -27.6 TD (numerous occasions, as were open access ordinances that had been enacted in Broward ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (County, Florida. ) Tj 84.6 0 TD (See) Tj ET 171 403.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 188.28 405.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (e.g.) Tj ET 191.28 403.68 17.16 0.6 re f BT 208.44 405.6 TD ( Barnstable Regional Hearing \(August 9, 1999\) at 55. ) Tj 261.84 0 TD ( ) Tj -383.88 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In additio) Tj 46.08 0 TD (n, portions of AT&T's filing to the Canadian cable television authority, ) Tj -82.08 -27.6 TD (the CRTC, regarding open access issues were read into the record.) Tj 317.64 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (6) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( In that filing, AT&T ) Tj -321.72 -27.6 TD (strongly advocated for an open access directive because of the anti) Tj 318.6 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive impact of a ) Tj -322.56 -27.6 TD (cl) Tj 8.64 0 TD (osed system: ) Tj 64.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -0.96 -27.6 TD ([Cable operators and local telephone companies] have the ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (ability to exercise significant market power through the ) Tj T* (control which they exercise over bottleneck broadband ) Tj T* (access facilities and through the dominance which they enjoy ) Tj T* (in their resp) Tj 57.24 0 TD (ective core business markets) Tj 5.28 Tc (\205) Tj 0 Tc (.) Tj 151.68 0 TD ( ) Tj -208.92 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (The potential for anti) Tj 101.52 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive behavior can manifest ) Tj -105.48 -13.8 TD (itself in a number of ways. One, pricing of Broadband ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (accessing services below cost in some markets so as to ) Tj T* (preclude service by other service providers. [Two,] [p]r) Tj 268.56 0 TD (icing ) Tj -340.56 -22.44 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 123.48 439.2 0.6 re f BT 525.6 120.96 TD ( ) Tj -439.2 -12 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0226 Tc 0.0074 Tw (\(September 2, 1) Tj 63.6 0 TD 0.0503 Tc -0.0203 Tw (999\) at 67) Tj 40.8 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0163 Tc 0.0137 Tw (69; Burlington Regional Hearing \(September 8, 1999\) at 151; Weymouth ) Tj -107.64 -11.52 TD 0.0248 Tc 0.0052 Tw (Regional Hearing \(September 9, 1999\) at 63.) Tj 179.88 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj -179.88 -6.84 TD /F0 6.48 Tf 0 Tw (6) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0207 Tc 0.0093 Tw (Comments of AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company, addressed to ) Tj 310.08 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0136 Tc 0.0164 Tw (Telecom Public Notice CRTC ) Tj -315.84 -11.52 TD 0.06 Tc 0 Tw (96) Tj 10.08 0 TD -0.0468 Tc (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0468 Tc -0.0168 Tw (36 \(February 4, 1997\) \(attached) Tj 127.08 0 TD -0.0132 Tc 0.0432 Tw ( as Exhibit C\).) Tj 57.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 47 0 obj 4617 endobj 45 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 28 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 46 0 R >> endobj 50 0 obj << /Length 51 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (10) Tj -141.6 653.04 TD (services above costs in uncontested markets thus providing ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ([a source of profits] with which to subsidize other services. ) Tj T* (Three, discriminatory behavior in relation to the terms and ) Tj T* (conditions for broadcast access services and refusal to ) Tj T* (unbundle bot) Tj 63 0 TD (tleneck components thus disadvantaging service ) Tj -63 -13.8 TD (providers with whom the access provider competes in ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (downstream markets.) Tj 102.48 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (7) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -106.56 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD (In sum, there was important and extensive discussion in the hearings concerning the anti) Tj 423.72 0 TD (-) Tj -423.72 -27.6 TD (competitive effect of the planned transfer of ) Tj 213.72 0 TD (control of the licenses despite Magistrate ) Tj -213.72 -27.6 TD (Beard's view that the open access issue was not directly tied to the four criteria in 207 ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (CMR 4.04. AT&T participated actively in, and in certain instances initiated, that debate.) Tj 426.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -426.36 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (There was also substantial disc) Tj 148.44 0 TD (ussion during the hearings concerning the adverse ) Tj -184.44 -27.6 TD (effect of a closed system upon the public interest. As Magistrate Beard described, the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (discussions were "frequently vigorous, sometimes contentious ) Tj 5.28 Tc -5.28 Tw (\205 ) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw (and grew to the point ) Tj T* (that AT&T decided to make a ) Tj 146.28 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (speci) Tj 24.6 0 TD (al presentation) Tj 72.36 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( about its views on the 'open access' ) Tj -243.24 -27.6 TD (question." ) Tj 54.48 0 TD (See) Tj ET 140.88 376.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 158.16 378 TD ( Magistrate's Report at 4 \(emphasis supplied\). AT&T not only presented its ) Tj -71.76 -27.6 TD (side of the open access debate at length in the ordinary course of the hearings, ) Tj 375.84 0 TD (see) Tj ET 462.24 348.48 15.24 0.6 re f BT 477.48 350.4 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (e.g.) Tj ET 480.48 348.48 17.16 0.6 re f BT 497.64 350.4 TD ( ) Tj -411.24 -27.6 TD (Foxboro Regional Heari) Tj 116.4 0 TD (ng \(September 2, 1999\) at 59) Tj 139.68 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (66, but, in fact, introduced what it ) Tj -260.04 -27.6 TD (asserted as a panel of experts to make a formal presentation on the issue. ) Tj 351 0 TD (See) Tj ET 437.4 293.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 454.68 295.2 TD ( Burlington ) Tj -368.28 -27.6 TD (Regional Hearing \(September 8, 1999\) at 90) Tj 212.4 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (127. ) Tj 27 0 TD ( ) Tj -243.36 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj 3 0 TD ( ) Tj -3 -141.72 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 100.56 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 98.04 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (7) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 92.16 84.48 14.4 0.48 re f BT 106.56 86.04 TD 0.0088 Tc 0.0212 Tw ( Weymouth Regional Hearing at 95) Tj 141.72 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0113 Tc 0.0187 Tw (96 quoting ) Tj 45.48 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0171 Tc 0.0129 Tw (Comments of AT&T Canada Long Distance Services ) Tj -210.6 -11.52 TD 0.0362 Tc 0 Tw (Company) Tj 38.4 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (.) Tj 2.52 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 51 0 obj 3547 endobj 48 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 50 0 R >> endobj 53 0 obj << /Length 54 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (11) Tj -213.6 652.8 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (D.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (The Issuing Authorities' Hearings and Decisi) Tj 229.92 0 TD (ons) Tj 17.4 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -283.32 -27.36 TD 0 0 1 rg /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (1.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (The City of Cambridge) Tj ET 158.4 679.68 111.12 0.6 re f BT 269.52 681.6 TD 0 0 0 rg /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj -183.12 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD /F0 12 Tf (On August 19, 1999, Cambridge, under the supervision of its City Manager, Robert ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Healy, held a public hearing to address AT&T's transfer request as required by 207 CMR ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (4.00. ) Tj 30 0 TD (See) Tj ET 116.4 596.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 133.68 598.8 TD ( Cambridge Hearing transcript attac) Tj 171.36 0 TD (hed as Exhibit D. At that time, Mr. Healy ) Tj -218.64 -27.6 TD (indicated that the record would remain open for public comment until September 10, 1999. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (At the meeting, Appellants presented their side of the debate concerning the issue of "open ) Tj T* (access." The parties' also dis) Tj 139.2 0 TD (cussed the failure of MediaOne to comply with the License ) Tj -139.2 -27.6 TD (Agreement.) Tj 56.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -56.04 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (As City Manager, it was the responsibility of Mr. Healy to decide whether to grant ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (the transfer request. Mr. Healy properly considered the information received from the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (meeting. In add) Tj 77.52 0 TD (ition, Mr. Healy made no decision prior to the close of the public hearing ) Tj -77.52 -27.6 TD (comment period.) Tj 81.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -81.24 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In his role as City Manager, Mr. Healy determined that any approval of the request ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (must be conditioned on several factors, i.e. compliance with the License, a showi) Tj 388.44 0 TD (ng of the ) Tj -388.44 -27.6 TD (requisite management experience by AT&T, as well as non) Tj 283.92 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (discriminatory access to its ) Tj -287.88 -27.6 TD (broadband system provided to other ISPs by AT&T. With respect to the latter, Mr. Healy ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (continued negotiations with AT&T beyond the public comment period, includ) Tj 374.52 0 TD (ing ) Tj -374.52 -27.6 TD (correspondence to AT&T consistently maintaining that approval of the request would in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (part require this open access commitment from AT&T. ) Tj 270.12 0 TD (See) Tj ET 356.52 182.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 373.8 184.8 TD ( October 20, 1999 Healy ) Tj -287.4 -27.6 TD (correspondence attached as composite Exhibit E.) Tj 234.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -234.96 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In its submission to the Division, AT) Tj 177.6 0 TD (&T mischaracterizes a subsequent City ) Tj -213.6 -27.6 TD (Council hearing as a "cable hearing" and as part of this record. The City of Cambridge ) Tj ET endstream endobj 54 0 obj 3038 endobj 52 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 53 0 R >> endobj 56 0 obj << /Length 57 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (12) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (held its appropriately noticed public hearing as required by law on August 19, and kept the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (record open for public comment for th) Tj 183.6 0 TD (ree weeks thereafter. The City Council meeting ) Tj -183.6 -27.6 TD (referenced by AT&T in its submission was merely a forum for the City Manager to update ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the City Council on the status of the license transfer. The Issuing Authority properly ) Tj T* (rendered its decision on November) Tj 167.64 0 TD ( 10, 1999, after failing on a number of occasions to ) Tj -167.64 -27.6 TD (receive adequate assurance that the transferee \(a\) would comply with the existing license, ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (\(b\) had sufficient management experience and \(c\) would provide access to other ISPs in a ) Tj T* (non) Tj 18 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (discriminatory mann) Tj 99.24 0 TD (er. Thus, Cambridge complied with all applicable law regarding ) Tj -121.2 -27.6 TD (the transfer decision and procedures. ) Tj 181.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 268.2 486.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 285.48 488.4 TD ( Cambridge Decision attached as composite E.) Tj 223.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -422.28 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (The City of Quincy) Tj ET 158.4 458.88 92.88 0.6 re f BT 251.28 460.8 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -164.88 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (On or about November 10, 1999 the City of Quincy issued a written decision ) Tj 371.88 0 TD (to the ) Tj -407.88 -27.6 TD (Division with respect to AT&T's FCC Form 394 request \(the "Quincy Decision"\). A copy ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (of the Quincy Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit F.) Tj 261.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -261.96 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Quincy Decision specifies that Quincy approves of the transfer of its cable ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (license from MediaOne to A) Tj 137.04 0 TD (T&T based, in part, upon the recommendations set forth in the ) Tj -137.04 -27.6 TD (Magistrate's Report and based further upon the specific representations and warranties that ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (AT&T and MediaOne made at the regional public hearings referenced above.) Tj 370.92 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (8) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( In addition, ) Tj -375 -27.6 TD (consistent wit) Tj 66.36 0 TD (h its reliance upon the Magistrate's Report and the Magistrate's ) Tj -66.36 -27.6 TD (acknowledgment of the importance of the open access issue, Quincy made its approval of ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (AT&T's FCC Form 394 request expressly contingent upon AT&T, as holder of the Quincy ) Tj T* (cable license, provi) Tj 92.76 0 TD (ding nondiscriminatory access to its cable system by any requesting ) Tj -92.76 -27.6 TD (Internet service provider on "terms and conditions that are at least as favorable as the terms ) Tj ET endstream endobj 57 0 obj 2957 endobj 55 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 56 0 R >> endobj 59 0 obj << /Length 60 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (13) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (and conditions provided to itself, to its affiliates, or to any other person." ) Tj 354.48 0 TD (See) Tj ET 440.88 707.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 458.16 709.2 TD ( November ) Tj -371.76 -27.6 TD (10, 1999 correspondence.) Tj 123 0 TD ( ) Tj -123 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (3.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (The Town of North Andover) Tj ET 158.4 652.08 138.36 0.6 re f BT 296.76 654 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 12 Tf ( ) Tj -210.36 -27.6 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (On or about November 10, 1999, the Town of North Andover sent AT&T a copy of ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (its written decision with respect to AT&T's FCC Form 394 request \(the "North Andover ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Decision"\). North Andover also ) Tj 158.52 0 TD (provided a copy of the decision to the Division. A copy ) Tj -158.52 -27.6 TD (of the North Andover Decision is attached hereto as composite Exhibit G.) Tj 354.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -354.24 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Representatives of North Andover participated in the regional hearing that the ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Division conducted on August 12, 1999 in Lowel) Tj 236.88 0 TD (l. Based upon the representations and ) Tj -236.88 -27.6 TD (warranties that AT&T and MediaOne made at that hearing, the transcript of the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (proceedings, additional communications with MediaOne, and its own independent review ) Tj T* (of the facts, North Andover approved the transfer requ) Tj 260.88 0 TD (est of AT&T. North Andover's ) Tj -260.88 -27.6 TD (approval was expressly contingent on five conditions: \(1\) that there be no increase in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (subscriber rates as a result of the transfer of control; \(2\) that AT&T comply in all respects ) Tj 432.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -432.96 -27.6 TD (with all of the terms and conditions of the) Tj 200.52 0 TD ( North Andover Renewal License; \(3\) that AT&T ) Tj 240.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -441 -27.6 TD (resolve certain compliance matters with the Renewal License identified in an attachment to ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the North Andover Decision; \(4\) that AT&T provide nondiscriminatory access to its cable ) Tj T* (modem platform in North Andove) Tj 164.52 0 TD (r for unaffiliated providers of internet and "on) Tj 219.96 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (line" ) Tj -388.44 -27.6 TD (services; and \(5\) that AT&T pay all applicable taxes due to the town.) Tj 330.72 0 TD ( ) Tj -330.72 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (4.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (The City of Somerville) Tj ET 158.4 182.88 110.64 0.6 re f BT 269.04 184.8 TD ( ) Tj -182.64 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (On or about November 10, 1999 the City of Somerville issued a written decision to ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (AT&T with respect to ) Tj 109.08 0 TD (AT&T's FCC Form 394 request \(the "Somerville Decision"\). A ) Tj -109.08 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 104.52 439.2 0.6 re f BT 525.6 102 TD ( ) Tj -439.2 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (8) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0248 Tc 0.0052 Tw ( Quincy also provided AT&T the opportunity to be heard directly by the city officials. The open access ) Tj -3.24 -11.4 TD -0.0072 Tc 0.0372 Tw (issue was also discussed at a ) Tj 116.04 0 TD -0.0009 Tc 0.0309 Tw (City Council meeting. The councilors unanimously adopted a resolution in ) Tj ET endstream endobj 60 0 obj 3618 endobj 58 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 59 0 R >> endobj 62 0 obj << /Length 63 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (14) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (copy of the Somerville Decision was provided to the Division. A copy of the Somerville ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Decision is attached hereto as composite Exhibit H.) Tj 247.8 0 TD ( ) Tj -247.8 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Representatives of Somerville participated in the regio) Tj 261.48 0 TD (n public hearing that the ) Tj -297.48 -27.6 TD (Division held in Malden, Massachusetts. In addition to considering evidence and material ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (submitted at the Malden regional hearing, MediaOne wrote directly to Somerville with ) Tj T* (respect to the issue of open access to Internet service) Tj 252.72 0 TD ( providers over cable television lines.) Tj 179.04 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (9) Tj 4.08 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -435.84 -27.6 TD (Thus, MediaOne raised and responded to Somerville's concerns with respect to the open ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (access issue directly.) Tj 99.72 0 TD ( ) Tj -99.72 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Somerville denied AT&T's transfer request. ) Tj 215.88 0 TD (See) Tj ET 338.28 486.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 355.56 488.4 TD ( Somerville Denial Letter dated ) Tj -269.16 -27.6 TD (November 10, 1999 attache) Tj 132.36 0 TD (d as Exhibit H. Among the reasons set forth in the Somerville ) Tj -132.36 -27.6 TD (Decision are the following:) Tj 130.68 0 TD ( ) Tj -130.68 -28.56 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (In Somerville's review of the available evidence, AT&T, as the transferee, lacks cable ) Tj 0 -27.48 TD (television management experience and technical expertise. Somerville conclude) Tj 386.28 0 TD (d that ) Tj -386.28 -27.6 TD (because AT&T, as ) Tj 92.28 0 TD (transferee) Tj ET 196.68 347.64 47.04 0.6 re f BT 243.72 349.56 TD (, had no direct experience in operating cable systems for ) Tj -139.32 -27.6 TD (municipalities, the transfer was inappropriate.) Tj 219.6 0 TD ( ) Tj -237.6 -28.56 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (Somerville rejected AT&T's plea that it would obtain or gain an appropriate level of ) Tj 0 -27.48 TD (municipal cable television expe) Tj 151.56 0 TD (rience by employing or otherwise relying upon ) Tj -151.56 -27.6 TD (MediaOne employees. Somerville informed AT&T that MediaOne had not ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (demonstrated management or technical expertise with respect to the Somerville cable ) Tj T* (system that was beneficial to Somerville's cable subscribe) Tj 276.96 0 TD (rs. Accordingly, AT&T's ) Tj -276.96 -27.6 TD (purported reliance on MediaOne's experience and technical ability was rejected with ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (sound reason.) Tj 65.88 0 TD ( ) Tj -83.88 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 102.84 439.2 0.6 re f BT 525.6 100.32 TD ( ) Tj -439.2 -12 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0215 Tc 0.0085 Tw (favor of open access.) Tj 84.24 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 63 0 obj 3297 endobj 61 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 62 0 R >> endobj 67 0 obj << /Length 68 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (15) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Finally, Somerville noted that AT&T's refusal to permit nondiscriminatory access ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (to its high speed cable modem Internet platform pos) Tj 249.36 0 TD (es a substantial legal barrier to the ) Tj -249.36 -27.6 TD (operation of a free and competitive market for high speed data services. Somerville ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (specifically found that AT&T's position on this important public policy issue rose to the ) Tj T* (level of a potentially actionable anti) Tj 171.72 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (trus) Tj 18 0 TD (t violation that Somerville could not and would ) Tj -193.68 -27.6 TD (not condone.) Tj 61.92 0 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj -61.92 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg (E.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.96 0 TD (AT&T / MediaOne's Appeals) Tj 150.48 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -186.48 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Appellants filed appeals of the North Andover and Quincy Decisions on ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (November 23, 1999. The Appellants filed their appeal in the Cambridge matter on ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Nove) Tj 25.92 0 TD (mber 29, 1999. Lastly, Appellants filed their appeal of the Somerville Decision on ) Tj -25.92 -27.6 TD (December 3, 1999. The Issuing Authorities filed motions for extensions of time in which ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (to respond to the Appellants' motions for summary decision and related materials on) Tj 403.92 0 TD ( or ) Tj -403.92 -27.6 TD (about December 1, 1999, seeking an extension of time for filing responsive briefs and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (materials through December 10, 1999. The Appellents assented to the requested extension ) Tj T* (and related motion.) Tj 92.88 0 TD ( ) Tj -92.88 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Issuing Authorities have also moved that the Divisio) Tj 273.48 0 TD (n consolidate any hearings ) Tj -309.48 -27.6 TD (in the above captioned matters in a single hearing or proceeding given the common issues ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (of law and fact in each case. Finally, the Issuing Authorities have opposed the Appellee's ) Tj T* (motions for expedited proceedings in a separate ) Tj 231.84 0 TD (memorandum filed contemporaneously ) Tj -231.84 -27.6 TD (with this Opposition.) Tj 101.16 0 TD ( ) Tj -101.16 -86.76 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 100.56 439.2 0.6 re f BT 525.6 98.04 TD ( ) Tj -439.2 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (9) Tj 3.24 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0052 Tc 0.0248 Tw ( Somerville also petitioned the FCC for guidance on this issue. In response to this request, MediaOne stated ) Tj -3.24 -11.52 TD -0 Tc 0.0303 Tw (it "must reassess our launch date for high) Tj 164.04 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0382 Tc -0.0082 Tw (speed ) Tj 25.32 0 TD 0.0021 Tc 0.0279 Tw (Internet service" in Somerville. Composite Exhibit H.) Tj 216.84 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 68 0 obj 3173 endobj 66 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 67 0 R >> endobj 71 0 obj << /Length 72 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (16) Tj -138.48 652.8 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (T) Tj 8.04 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.033 Tc 0.063 Tw (HE ) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (O) Tj 9.36 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf 0.0316 Tc -0.0016 Tw (PEN ) Tj 21.36 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (A) Tj 8.64 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0041 Tc 0.0341 Tw (CCESS ) Tj 33 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (I) Tj 4.68 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0087 Tc 0.0387 Tw (SSUE ) Tj 26.16 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (I) Tj 4.68 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0288 Tc 0.0588 Tw (S ) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (C) Tj 8.64 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf 0.0114 Tc 0.0186 Tw (ENTRAL ) Tj 42 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (T) Tj 8.04 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0744 Tc 0.1044 Tw (O ) Tj 9.72 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (T) Tj 8.04 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0216 Tc 0.0516 Tw (HESE ) Tj 27.72 0 TD /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (A) Tj 8.64 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf 0.0244 Tc (PPEALS) Tj 36.36 0 TD 0 0 0 rg /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -363.96 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg (A.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (Open Access on Broadband ) Tj 144.84 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( This is the Way) Tj 82.8 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -267.6 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Open access, simply described, is the requirement that cable companies offer non) Tj 389.76 0 TD (-) Tj -425.76 -27.6 TD (affiliat) Tj 31.92 0 TD (ed Internet Service Providers \("ISPs"\) non) Tj 205.44 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (discriminatory access to broadband ) Tj -241.32 -27.6 TD (cable customers. Recently, cable television companies have begun to introduce cable ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (modem services that provide access to the Internet without a telephone connection and at ) Tj T* (spe) Tj 15.96 0 TD (eds many times faster than traditional telephone Internet connections. Cable companies ) Tj -15.96 -27.6 TD (to date, however, have not permitted their own customers to select the customer's preferred ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (ISP. Rather than affording consumers "open access," cable companies such as) Tj 376.08 0 TD ( MediaOne ) Tj -376.08 -27.6 TD (and AT&T are requiring their customers to take the Internet service that the cable company ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (offers as a "bundled" or "tied" service. ) Tj 189.72 0 TD ( ) Tj -189.72 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (A customer in Massachusetts who wants broadband service cannot receive this ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (desired connection to the Internet ) Tj 163.08 0 TD (without paying for the captive Road Runner ISP that ) Tj -163.08 -27.6 TD (MediaOne owns and controls as a separate affiliated company. Thus, the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (MediaOne/AT&T system is a "closed access" system in which any consumer who wants ) Tj T* (the benefits of cable broadband data transmission m) Tj 249.24 0 TD (ust pay ) Tj 36.96 0 TD /F4 12 Tf (twice) Tj 25.32 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( first paying for the ) Tj -318.48 -27.6 TD (content, navigation, email service and other services of the ISP that the cable company ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (owns or controls and then paying additional amounts for the customer's desired ISP. The ) Tj T* (results of a "closed access" system on com) Tj 203.88 0 TD (petition include higher prices, less consumer ) Tj -203.88 -27.6 TD (choice, stifled innovation, and constraints on the free flow of information and electronic ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (commerce.) Tj 52.8 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 72 0 obj 3507 endobj 69 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 70 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 71 0 R >> endobj 76 0 obj << /Length 77 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (17) Tj -213.6 652.8 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (B.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.96 0 TD (The Importance Of Open Access In The Current Cable Debate) Tj 321.36 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -357.36 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The open access issue is being debated a) Tj 194.4 0 TD (nd, due to AT&T's refusal to consent to ) Tj -230.4 -27.6 TD (true open access, litigated around the country. The Appellants describe the open access ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (debate as "trench warfare." In reality, AT&T has undertaken a nation) Tj 332.88 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (wide blitzkrieg to ) Tj -336.84 -27.6 TD (kill the open access debate before it ) Tj 173.88 0 TD (more seriously threatens AT&T's emerging monopoly ) Tj -173.88 -27.6 TD (on the delivery of high speed Internet service and cable based telephone service through ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (AT&T's rapid purchase of cable operators around the country. AT&T's recent public ) Tj T* (embrace of open access is grossly ) Tj 164.4 0 TD (insufficient. Absent a legally binding commitment, ) Tj -164.4 -27.6 TD (AT&T's open access announcement is a Trojan horse and makes all the more reasonable ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the Issuing Authorities' refusal to open their gates to AT&T. As a result, Massachusetts is ) Tj T* (in a unique position to sha) Tj 126.36 0 TD (pe this critical consumer and business issue. The implications of ) Tj -126.36 -27.6 TD (AT&T's refusal to commit to open access will negatively impact millions of Massachusetts ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (consumers and hundreds of Massachusetts Internet service providers and related ) Tj T* (businesses.) Tj 53.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -53.64 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The issu) Tj 40.32 0 TD (e of open access is not merely in the profit interest of giant ISPs like AOL ) Tj -76.32 -27.6 TD (and Mindspring, but also in the public interest of the Internet community at large. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Nationally, proponents of open access include the following: the National Association of ) Tj T* (Count) Tj 29.4 0 TD (ies; Center for Media Education; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers ) Tj -29.4 -27.6 TD (Union; Media Access Project; OMB Watch; and the OpenNET Coalition, consisting of ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (more than 900 independent ISP and technology companies. We add the voices of ) Tj T* (Cambridge, North Andov) Tj 122.76 0 TD (er, Quincy and Somerville to the list.) Tj 176.88 0 TD ( ) Tj -299.64 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (More than 2.5 million people in approximately 42.1% of Massachusetts households ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (are "online." There are approximately 55 independent ISPs located in Massachusetts and ) Tj ET endstream endobj 77 0 obj 2804 endobj 75 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 70 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 76 0 R >> endobj 79 0 obj << /Length 80 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (18) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (another 400 ISPs located outside the Commonwealt) Tj 248.28 0 TD (h that provide services to ) Tj -248.28 -27.6 TD (Massachusetts homes and residents. Internet service providers and related companies ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (provide tens of thousands of jobs to Massachusetts residents. ) Tj 298.08 0 TD ( ) Tj -262.08 -27.6 TD (It is simply not credible to suggest that the open access issue ) Tj 292.92 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( so fundamental) Tj 76.56 0 TD ( to ) Tj -409.44 -27.6 TD (the future delivery of Internet services in this state ) Tj 243.24 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( is not relevant in this proceeding.) Tj 162.72 0 TD ( ) Tj -409.92 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (C.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (Denial of Open Access Is Harmful to Robust Competition) Tj 293.88 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -329.88 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Limitation on consumers' ability to choose their ISPs means less competition ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (among all ISPs, s) Tj 83.04 0 TD (lower growth and less innovation on the Internet itself. Without the ) Tj -83.04 -27.6 TD (robust competition that open access provides, cable companies such as AT&T/MediaOne ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (may exert extraordinary control over content and access. Accordingly, the open access ) Tj T* (issue is a legi) Tj 64.2 0 TD (timate public policy consideration for local authorities. As set forth below, ) Tj -64.2 -27.6 TD (the authority to review issues of competition in the context of the transfer of a cable license ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (was delegated to local authorities by the federal government.) Tj 291.12 0 TD ( ) Tj -291.12 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Efforts by entrenc) Tj 86.04 0 TD (hed cable companies and the emerging Internet giant, AT&T, to ) Tj -122.04 -27.6 TD (characterize the open access debate as an effort to regulate the Internet should be dismissed ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (as what they are: a smokescreen generated to obscure the anti) Tj 294 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive conduct from ) Tj -297.96 -27.6 TD (which AT&T s) Tj 72.48 0 TD (eeks to reap huge rewards. The debate is neither about regulation of the ) Tj -72.48 -27.6 TD (Internet nor about denying cable companies a return on their investment. "Open access" ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (does not mean "free access." The Issuing Authorities simply ask for a level playing field ) Tj T* (on ) Tj 15 0 TD (which ISPs can compete by receiving access to broadband cable networks on terms that ) Tj -15 -27.6 TD (are no more or less favorable than the terms that cable companies offer to their own ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (affiliated ISPs.) Tj 71.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -71.04 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (D.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (The Portland Litigation) Tj 122.04 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 80 0 obj 2968 endobj 78 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 70 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 79 0 R >> endobj 82 0 obj << /Length 83 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (19) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The open access issue has already b) Tj 171.12 0 TD (een litigated in favor of local authorities and ) Tj -207.12 -27.6 TD (open access. Earlier this year, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (ruled that an open access requirement imposed on AT&T by the City of Portland was ) Tj T* (within the authority of the local) Tj 151.2 0 TD ( government, not preempted by federal statutes that ) Tj -151.2 -27.6 TD (regulate cable television, did not violate the First Amendment, Commerce Clause or ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, did not violate the Oregon Constitution and did ) Tj T* (not breach existing franchise a) Tj 146.28 0 TD (greements. ) Tj 58.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 290.76 541.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 308.04 543.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (AT&T, et. al. v. City of Portland) Tj ET 311.04 541.68 156.84 0.6 re f BT 467.88 543.6 TD (, 43 F. ) Tj -381.48 -27.6 TD (Supp. 2d 1146 \(D. Or. 1999\), appeal pending, No. 99) Tj 255.24 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (35609 \(9th Cir.\) \(attached as Exhibit ) Tj -259.2 -27.6 TD (I\) Against the backdrop of the Portland litigation, the Appellants cannot credibly maintain ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (that open access) Tj 77.76 0 TD ( is not relevant or that it is not an issue that local authorities may consider.) Tj 356.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -433.8 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (E.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.96 0 TD (AT&T's Recent Commitment To "Open Access") Tj 249.72 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -285.72 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0 0 1 rg ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (1.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (AT&T's December 6 Promise to the FCC) Tj ET 158.4 403.68 198.36 0.6 re f BT 356.76 405.6 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 12 Tf ( ) Tj -270.36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (On December 6, 1999 AT&T wrote to FCC Chairman, William E. Kennard, ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (purpor) Tj 31.92 0 TD (ting to articulate AT&T's commitment to provide open access to unaffiliated ISPs at ) Tj -31.92 -27.6 TD (some point in the future. The letter was the by) Tj 223.68 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (product of meetings between AT&T, ) Tj -227.64 -27.6 TD (Mindspring, Excite@Home, a local official, the Media Access Project \(a public interest ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (gr) Tj 9.84 0 TD (oup\), and the Mayor of Atlanta. Media Access Project dropped out of the discussion due ) Tj -9.84 -27.6 TD (to numerous, fundamental problems with AT&T's position, nor did the Mayor of Atlanta ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (join in the letter. A copy of the AT&T letter of December 6 and responsive letters) Tj 394.44 0 TD ( from ) Tj -394.44 -27.6 TD (MindSpring and the Media Access Project of the same date are attached hereto as ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (composite Exhibit J.) Tj 98.64 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 83 0 obj 2982 endobj 81 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 70 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 82 0 R >> endobj 85 0 obj << /Length 86 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (20) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T's promise to the FCC that AT&T will provide its own version of "open ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (access" to ISPs in or about mid) Tj 149.16 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (2002 is vaguely articulated in the Decembe) Tj 207.12 0 TD (r 6, 1999 letter ) Tj -360.24 -27.6 TD (which provides:) Tj 76.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -40.92 -28.56 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (a choice of ISPs;) Tj 80.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -98.64 -14.64 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (the ability to exercise a choice of ISPs without having to subscribe to any other ) Tj 0 -13.68 TD (ISPs service \(i.e. paying for MediaOne's captive Road Runner ISP ) Tj 319.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (and) Tj 18 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( the ) Tj -337.92 -13.8 TD (consumer's ISP of choice\);) Tj 127.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -145.92 -14.76 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (a choice of Internet co) Tj 106.68 0 TD (nnections at different speeds and prices;) Tj 191.88 0 TD ( ) Tj -316.56 -14.64 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (control over "start pages" and other aspects of the consumer's Internet ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (experience;) Tj 55.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -73.2 -14.76 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (functions on the high speed modem that are, to the extent technically feasible, ) Tj 0 -13.68 TD (comparable to those available on other high speed ) Tj 242.76 0 TD (connections.) Tj 60.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -357 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T promised to negotiate open access contracts with independent ISPs "to take ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (effect upon the expiration of existing exclusive contractual arrangements . . . " AT&T ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (further stated that it would provide independent ISPs with:) Tj 280.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -244.92 -28.56 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (Internet tran) Tj 58.56 0 TD (sport services for high speed access at "reasonably comparable" ) Tj -58.56 -13.68 TD (prices to those offered to other ISPs for similar services;) Tj 269.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -287.64 -14.76 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (the opportunity to market directly to consumers using AT&T's Internet ) Tj 0 -13.68 TD (broadband network;) Tj 96.12 0 TD ( ) Tj -114.12 -14.76 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (the opportunity to bill customers directly;) Tj 198.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -216.96 -14.64 TD /F3 12 Tf -6.36 Tc (\267) Tj 5.52 0 TD 0 Tc -0.72 Tw ( ) Tj 12.48 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw (the opportunity to differentiate service offerings to consumers.) Tj 299.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -353.64 -13.68 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0 0 1 rg ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD ("Open Access Lite") Tj ET 194.4 299.4 94.44 0.6 re f BT 288.84 301.32 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 12 Tf ( ) Tj -202.44 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The AT&T commitment to the FCC is an important step in the right direction and ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (an admission by AT&T that open access is the means by which the Internet may b) Tj 393 0 TD (est ) Tj -393 -27.6 TD (continue to develop. However, at its core, AT&T does not promise true open access but ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ("open access lite" ) Tj 87.72 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( a version of open access that AT&T is attempting to control on ) Tj -91.68 -27.6 TD (AT&T's terms and on a timeline that permits AT&T to maintain the status quo for m) Tj 405.96 0 TD (ore ) Tj -405.96 -27.6 TD (than two years.) Tj 72.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -72.48 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (As set forth in the letters of Dave Baker of MindSpring and Andrew Jay ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Schwartzman of Media Access Project, AT&T's promise to the FCC does not commit ) Tj ET endstream endobj 86 0 obj 4281 endobj 84 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 70 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 85 0 R >> endobj 88 0 obj << /Length 89 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (21) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (AT&T to a truly "open" path on its broadband network for independent ISPs. As noted ) Tj 421.44 0 TD (by ) Tj -421.44 -27.6 TD (Mr. Baker,) Tj 52.08 0 TD ( ) Tj 19.92 -27.6 TD (While we sincerely appreciate the open access commitments which AT&T ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (is making, they will not take effect until after the exclusive arrangements ) Tj T* (with affiliated companies such as Excite@Home expire, currently set for ) Tj T* (mid) Tj 18.72 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (2002) Tj 5.28 Tc -5.28 Tw (\205 ) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw (Also, while thi) Tj 110.04 0 TD (s letter of intent establishes an important ) Tj -132.72 -13.8 TD (principle that AT&T will not discriminate in favor of affiliated ISP's like ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (Excite@Home over unaffiliated ISP's, they could still impose constraints ) Tj T* (such as limitations on video streaming or IP telephony on all u) Tj 299.52 0 TD (sers of their ) Tj -299.52 -13.8 TD (system.) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD (Baker correspondence, December 6, 1999 attached as composite Exhibit J.) Tj 357.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -393.96 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T's December 6 letter to the FCC is an effort to manage the advent of "open ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (access." AT&T's unsuccessful litigation in Portland and the continuing challenge) Tj 390.96 0 TD (s to ) Tj -390.96 -27.6 TD (steadfast defense of "closed access" at state and local levels are the handwriting on the wall ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (that motivated AT&T to abandon many of the first line defenses that AT&T raised in the ) Tj T* (various public hearings at issue in this matter. Now that AT&T is in) Tj 328.92 0 TD ( apparent retreat from ) Tj -328.92 -27.6 TD (its anti) Tj 32.4 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (open access position, the Division should consider the open access issue in a full ) Tj -36.36 -27.6 TD (evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Issuing Authorities' respective decisions and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (respect their choice to make open access binding on AT) Tj 267.6 0 TD (&T.) Tj 19.56 0 TD ( ) Tj -287.16 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 89 0 obj 2298 endobj 87 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 70 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 88 0 R >> endobj 92 0 obj << /Length 93 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (22) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD 0 0 1 rg (3.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (AT&T Should Not Be Permitted To Dictate the Timeline) Tj ET 122.4 707.28 274.32 0.6 re f BT 396.72 709.2 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -310.32 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (As set forth in the correspondence attached hereto as composite Exhibit J, AT&T ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (has promised to transition its broadband Internet network to some form of open access ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (following the expira) Tj 97.2 0 TD (tion of purported exclusive contracts with unidentified ISPs. As stated ) Tj -97.2 -27.6 TD (in AT&T's December 6 letter to the FCC, ". . . AT&T has agreed to adhere to the following ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ([open access] principles once these exclusive contractual arrangement no longer apply." ) Tj T* (The ) Tj 21.6 0 TD ("exclusive contractual arrangements" to which AT&T obliquely refers are its ) Tj -21.6 -27.6 TD (relationship with the nation) Tj 131.64 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (wide ISP Excite@Home and, perhaps, to its contemplated ) Tj -135.6 -27.6 TD (ownership and control of the Road Runner ISP here in Massachusetts.) Tj 335.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -335.64 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (According to AT&T, these al) Tj 140.52 0 TD (leged exclusive arrangements are scheduled to expire ) Tj -176.52 -27.6 TD (in or about mid) Tj 73.68 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (2002. AT&T did not state in its letter to the FCC that AT&T owns 58% of ) Tj -77.64 -27.6 TD (Excite@Home. Following the merger with MediaOne, AT&T would presumably own and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (control the Road Runner ISP in Mas) Tj 174.36 0 TD (sachusetts. Therefore, AT&T's purported "exclusive ) Tj -174.36 -27.6 TD (relationships" are essentially deals struck with itself. AT&T's commitment to the FCC is ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (an attempt to forestall the opening of AT&T's broadband network for two years or more ) Tj T* (while AT&T develops new stra) Tj 150.96 0 TD (tegies to deal with the public assault on its developing ) Tj -150.96 -27.6 TD (broadband monopoly. There can be little dispute that AT&T can provide open access in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (short order without running afoul of the alleged contracts it maintains with entities that it ) Tj T* (owns or controls. ) Tj 88.92 0 TD (Permitting AT&T to delay the opening of the broadband path to ) Tj -88.92 -27.6 TD (independent ISPs for two years or more would allow AT&T to execute an "end run" ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (around its own promise to remove the barriers it has in place to nondiscriminatory ) Tj T* (broadband access.) Tj 87 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 93 0 obj 2722 endobj 90 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 91 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 92 0 R >> endobj 95 0 obj << /Length 96 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (23) Tj -23.16 652.8 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (A) Tj 8.64 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf 0.0242 Tc (RGUMENT) Tj 49.56 0 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -248.64 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (A.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (The Summary Decision Standard Has Not Been Met) Tj 267.36 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -303.36 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In this matter, the Appellants seek a summary decision from the Division that the ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Issuing Authorities' denials or conditional approvals of the AT&T license transfer were ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (invalid under applicable ) Tj 118.8 0 TD (law. Appellants fall far short of meeting their burden of ) Tj -118.8 -27.6 TD (demonstrating that there are no issues of fact in this matter and that they are entitled to ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (judgment as a matter of law. The Appellants cite little or no authority for the proposition ) Tj T* (that they ar) Tj 53.52 0 TD (e entitled to such a determination without hearing on the important public ) Tj -53.52 -27.6 TD (policy issues that are central to this controversy. Appellants only proffer 801 CMR ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (1.01\(7\)\(h\) as grounds for relief on a summary basis.) Tj 249 0 TD ( ) Tj -249 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (801 CMR 1.01\(7\)\(h\) simply provides the mec) Tj 219.84 0 TD (hanism by which the Division ) Tj 146.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (may) Tj 19.92 0 TD /F0 12 Tf (, in ) Tj -422.4 -27.6 TD (appropriate circumstances, decide a case in a summary proceeding. The regulation does ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (not articulate the high standard that the Appellants must meet here to obtain relief without ) Tj T* (a hearing. 801 CMR 1.01\(7\)\(h\) provides) Tj 196.92 0 TD (, in pertinent part:) Tj 85.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -210.84 -27.6 TD ([w]hen a party is of the opinion there is no genuine issue of ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (fact relating to all or part of a claim or defense and he is ) Tj T* (entitled to prevail as a matter of law, the Party may move, ) Tj T* (with or without supporting affidavits, for summary d) Tj 252.72 0 TD (ecision ) Tj -252.72 -13.8 TD (on the claim or defense.) Tj 114.72 0 TD ( ) Tj -114.72 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD (This regulation does not, in and of itself, entitle the Appellants to a summary decision or ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (establish the standard that Appellants must satisfy. It merely provides the procedural ) Tj T* (mechanism for the motion.) Tj 129.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -129.24 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (As specifically) Tj 71.16 0 TD ( set forth in Division Regulation 4.06, this appeal ". . . shall be ) Tj -107.16 -27.6 TD (initiated in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 166A, \24714." 207 CMR 4.06. The ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Regulation goes on to specify that "[t]he Commission may, ) Tj 286.68 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (after a hearing conducted ) Tj ET endstream endobj 96 0 obj 3008 endobj 94 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 91 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 95 0 R >> endobj 98 0 obj << /Length 99 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (24) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD /F2 12 Tf (pursuant to M.G) Tj 79.68 0 TD (.L. c. 166A, \24714) Tj 76.32 0 TD /F0 12 Tf (, issue such order as it deems appropriate . . ." ) Tj 225.72 0 TD (Id.) Tj ET 468.12 707.28 12.72 0.6 re f BT 480.84 709.2 TD ( ) Tj -394.44 -27.6 TD (\(emphasis supplied\). Thus, the need for a hearing on any appeal from a transfer ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (proceeding is presumed in the applicable regulation.) Tj 250.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -250.32 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Chapter 166A provides that the Division ". . . ) Tj 220.68 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (sha) Tj 16.68 0 TD (ll) Tj 6.72 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( hold a hearing upon each such ) Tj -280.08 -27.6 TD (appeal, requiring due notice to be given to all interested parties." M.G.L. c. 166A, \24714. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Again, the need for a hearing is presumed with the use of mandatory, rather than ) Tj T* (permissive, language.) Tj 103.92 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (10) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( The Appellants further rel) Tj 130.68 0 TD (y upon the Division's decisions in ) Tj -242.76 -27.6 TD (Belmont Cable Associates v. Board of Selectmen of the Town of Belmont) Tj ET 86.4 514.08 355.32 0.6 re f BT 441.72 516 TD (, CATV Docket ) Tj -355.32 -27.6 TD (No. A) Tj 29.28 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (65 \(1988\) and ) Tj 70.2 0 TD (Ridge Cablevision Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of the Town of ) Tj ET 189.84 486.48 303.48 0.6 re f BT 496.32 488.4 TD ( ) Tj -409.92 -27.6 TD (Braintree) Tj ET 86.4 458.88 44.4 0.6 re f BT 130.8 460.8 TD (, CATV Docket No. A) Tj 108.48 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (33 \(1983\). In both cases, ) Tj 124.2 0 TD (the Division articulated a ) Tj -281.04 -27.6 TD (standard for summary decisions under 801 CMR 1.01\(7\)\(h\) that is virtually identical to the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (standard for summary judgment under the Massachusetts and Federal Rules of Civil ) Tj T* (Procedure.) Tj 51.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -51.48 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In the ) Tj 30.36 0 TD (Braintree) Tj ET 152.76 348.48 44.4 0.6 re f BT 197.16 350.4 TD ( case, the Division noted:) Tj 121.56 0 TD ( ) Tj -232.32 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 72 -13.8 TD (T) Tj 7.32 0 TD (he [Division] has held that a summary decision is ) Tj -7.32 -13.8 TD ("appropriate where it has been demonstrated that no genuine ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (issue as to any material fact exists and where the moving ) Tj T* (party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.") Tj 236.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -272.04 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (CATV Docket No. A) Tj 102.48 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (33 at 2.) Tj 35.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -142.08 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In th) Tj 22.08 0 TD (e ) Tj 8.28 0 TD (Belmont) Tj ET 152.76 224.28 41.28 0.6 re f BT 194.04 226.2 TD ( case, the Division noted:) Tj 121.56 0 TD ( ) Tj -229.2 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 72 -13.8 TD (Under 801 CMR 1.01\(7\)\(f\) [now \(h\)], 'any Party may with or ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (without supporting affidavits move for summary decision in ) Tj T* (his[/her] favor . . . The [Division] has held that summary ) Tj T* (decision is 'appropriate where it has been) Tj 196.92 0 TD ( demonstrated that ) Tj -196.92 -13.8 TD (no genuine issue [of] material fact exists and where the ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' ) Tj -72 -20.16 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 111.96 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 109.44 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (10) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0117 Tc 0.0183 Tw ( A person not a party but substantially and specifically affected by the proceedings may likewise be ) Tj -6.48 -11.4 TD 0.0071 Tc 0.0229 Tw (permitted to participate, including the right to argue orally at the hearing and to file an amicus ) Tj 376.68 0 TD 0.0361 Tc -0.0061 Tw (brief. 801 ) Tj -376.68 -11.52 TD 0.0287 Tc 0.0013 Tw (CMR 1.01\(9\). ) Tj 59.04 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 99 0 obj 4101 endobj 97 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 91 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 98 0 R >> endobj 101 0 obj << /Length 102 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (25) Tj -141.6 653.04 TD (\(citation omitted\). On a motion for summary decision, the ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (moving party has the burden of establishing that there are no ) Tj T* (issues of fact. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all ) Tj T* (doubts are resolved against the moving party, and supporting ) Tj T* (affidavits and depositions are carefully scrutinized by the ) Tj T* (court. \(citation omitted\).) Tj 120.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -156.24 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (CATV Docket No. A) Tj 102.48 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (65 at 3.) Tj 35.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -142.08 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Accordingly, t) Tj 68.76 0 TD (he Division has adopted a standard for motions made under 801 ) Tj -104.76 -27.6 TD (CMR 1.01\(7\)\(h\) that mirrors the summary judgment standard under the Massachusetts and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The standard for summary decisions under M.G.L. c. ) Tj T* (30A sets an even highe) Tj 111 0 TD (r bar.) Tj 25.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -136.2 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Chapter 166A specifies further that any hearing provided for in Section 14 of the ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (statute ". . . shall be subject to the provisions of chapter thirty A." M.G.L. c. 166A, \24719. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (In the context of adjudicatory administrative proceedings under Chapter) Tj 344.76 0 TD ( 30A, the standard ) Tj -344.76 -27.6 TD (for summary decisions is extraordinarily high ) Tj 221.04 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( arguably higher than the standard for ) Tj -225 -27.6 TD (summary judgment in civil litigation before a court in the Commonwealth. ) Tj 363.6 0 TD ( ) Tj -363.6 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In ) Tj 12.72 0 TD (Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Council v. Outdoor Advertising Board) Tj ET 135.12 334.68 359.4 0.6 re f BT 494.52 336.6 TD (, ) Tj 6 0 TD (9 ) Tj -414.12 -27.6 TD (Mass. App. Ct. 775 \(1980\), the Massachusetts Appeals Court articulated a detailed ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (standard for summary decision in administrative adjudicatory proceedings. In ruling that a ) Tj T* (summary decision was appropriate on the unique facts of that case, the Appeals C) Tj 391.56 0 TD (ourt held:) Tj 46.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -365.88 -27.6 TD (. . . in the State context before us, administrative summary ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (judgment procedures do not transgress statutory or ) Tj T* (constitutional rights to a hearing where those procedures are ) Tj T* (such that they allow the agency to dispense with a hearing ) Tj T* /F2 12 Tf (only when th) Tj 61.32 0 TD (e papers or pleadings filed conclusively show on ) Tj -61.32 -13.8 TD (their face that the hearing can serve no useful purpose, ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (because a hearing could not affect the decision) Tj 226.08 0 TD /F0 12 Tf (.) Tj 3 0 TD ( ) Tj -229.08 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD (Id) Tj ET 86.4 113.88 9.72 0.6 re f BT 96.12 115.8 TD (. at 785) Tj 35.64 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (86 \(emphasis supplied\).) Tj 114.24 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 102 0 obj 3178 endobj 100 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 91 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 101 0 R >> endobj 104 0 obj << /Length 105 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (26) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In the ) Tj 30.36 0 TD (Outdoor Advertising) Tj ET 152.76 707.28 99.48 0.6 re f BT 252.24 709.2 TD ( case, the parties' submissions confir) Tj 174.48 0 TD (med that there were ) Tj -340.32 -27.6 TD (no facts in dispute and that the application of the governing law to those facts was clear. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Here, the landscape is quite different and has been radically changed in the past few days ) Tj T* (by AT&T's purported promise to the FCC that AT&T wil) Tj 275.64 0 TD (l permit open access on its cable ) Tj -275.64 -27.6 TD (networks. There are numerous facts in dispute with respect to AT&T's merger with ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (MediaOne, most notably its impact on competition and consumer choice, AT&T's ability ) Tj T* (to provide nondiscriminatory access to its broadband ne) Tj 267.6 0 TD (twork to Internet service providers, ) Tj -267.6 -27.6 TD (how rapidly such open access service can be provided, and a host of other pertinent facts. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Moreover, the application of the statutes, regulations and other authorities to the facts of ) Tj T* (this case is complex and a matter ) Tj 161.52 0 TD (on which the Division must hear evidence and argument ) Tj -161.52 -27.6 TD (from all interested parties, including any interested parties who seek to intervene pursuant ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (to 801 CMR 1.01\(9\) prior to the scheduled dates for any hearings in this matter.) Tj 382.44 0 TD ( ) Tj -382.44 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Outdoor Advertising) Tj ET 122.4 376.08 99.48 0.6 re f BT 221.88 378 TD ( clarifi) Tj 31.56 0 TD (es the standard applicable here. In order to obtain the ) Tj -167.04 -27.6 TD (relief they seek without the hearing that the Division's regulations and Chapter 166A ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (require, the Appellants must demonstrate ) Tj 200.4 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (on the face of the submissions) Tj 143.64 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( that there is ) Tj -344.04 -27.6 TD (absolutely no possible usef) Tj 129.24 0 TD (ul purpose to a Division hearing. Thus, the high standard that ) Tj -129.24 -27.6 TD (governs summary decisions in the context of an administrative proceeding is more akin to ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (a motion to dismiss as opposed to a motion for summary judgment. If there is any ) Tj T* (possibility that a he) Tj 93.36 0 TD (aring on the merits of the case will be "useful," the Division must ) Tj -93.36 -27.6 TD (conduct an evidentiary hearing. ) Tj 156.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -156.48 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Even if the lower "summary judgment" standard applies, Appellants are not entitled ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (to relief without a hearing. In this case, the Division cannot take a) Tj 318.12 0 TD (ction without providing ) Tj -318.12 -27.6 TD (the Issuing Authorities, or other interested parties, the opportunity to be heard and to put ) Tj ET endstream endobj 105 0 obj 3032 endobj 103 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 91 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 104 0 R >> endobj 107 0 obj << /Length 108 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (27) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (the evidence in support of the Issuing Authorities' respective decisions before the Division ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (and in the record of this case.) Tj 140.64 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (11) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -148.8 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (For the reas) Tj 56.4 0 TD (ons described above, the Appellants have failed to meet the high ) Tj -92.4 -27.6 TD (standard for a summary decision and the Division should deny the motion for summary ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (disposition. Moreover, as set forth below, Appellants legal arguments fail as well.) Tj 395.28 0 TD ( ) Tj -395.28 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (B. ) Tj 14.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 21.96 0 TD (Application of the) Tj 92.16 0 TD ( Regulations to Exclude Consideration of Open Access ) Tj -92.16 -13.8 TD (Exceeds the Division's Authority) Tj 167.04 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -203.04 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Appellants maintain that the Division's regulations preclude any consideration of ) Tj 390.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -426.48 -27.6 TD (the open access issue by the Issuing Authorities. If the Division interprets R) Tj 366 0 TD (egulation 4.04 ) Tj -366 -27.6 TD (so as to prohibit consideration by the Issuing Authorities of the anti) Tj 322.8 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive effects of ) Tj -326.76 -27.6 TD (closed access, then the Regulation as applied must be found invalid. The Division will ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (have exceeded the authority granted it by statute and imper) Tj 282.36 0 TD (missibly narrowed the rights of ) Tj -282.36 -27.6 TD (the Issuing Authorities in a manner contrary to the express intent of the relevant federal ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (legislation and its own enabling statute. As noted earlier, these Regulations have yet to be ) Tj T* (challenged; therefore, this is a critic) Tj 171.48 0 TD (al matter of first impression that must be carefully ) Tj -171.48 -27.6 TD (addressed by the Division. ) Tj 132.84 0 TD (See) Tj ET 219.24 307.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 236.52 309 TD ( Magistrate's Report at 2.) Tj 120.12 0 TD ( ) Tj -234.24 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0 0 1 rg (1.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (If applied to preclude consideration of open access, the regulations as ) Tj ET 158.4 265.68 332.52 0.6 re f BT 158.4 253.8 TD (applied are contrary to Congressional intent and federal law) Tj ET 158.4 251.88 286.2 0.6 re f BT 444.6 253.8 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -322.2 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -36 -27.72 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Congress gave express authorization for consideration of competition issues during ) Tj -36 -20.64 TD (transfer proceedings. 47 U.S.C. \247533 provides in relevant part,) Tj 303.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -303.36 -47.64 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 146.52 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 144 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (11) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0103 Tc 0.0197 Tw ( Appellants "reservation" of their right to assert federal and Massachusetts claims in later proceedings is ) Tj -6.48 -11.52 TD 0.0095 Tc 0.0205 Tw (likewise inappropriate and is not accepted by the Appellees. As a general matter, failure to raise a matter in ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD -0.0232 Tc 0 Tw (administr) Tj 37.44 0 TD 0.0126 Tc 0.0174 Tw (ative adjudicative proceedings before an agency constitutes a waiver of that matter and precludes ) Tj -37.44 -11.52 TD 0 Tc 0.0295 Tw (that matter from being raised on judicial review. ) Tj 197.4 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 283.8 95.88 14.4 0.48 re f BT 298.2 97.44 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD -0.0126 Tc 0.0426 Tw (Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. Mass. Comm. Against ) Tj ET 300.72 95.88 197.88 0.48 re f BT 86.4 86.04 TD -0.0171 Tc 0 Tw (Discrimination) Tj ET 86.4 84.48 59.52 0.48 re f BT 145.92 86.04 TD 0.0423 Tc -0.0123 Tw (, 375 Mass. 160, 172 \(1978\); ) Tj 118.68 0 TD 0.0177 Tc 0.0123 Tw (City of Bosto) Tj 53.64 0 TD -0.0273 Tc 0.0573 Tw (n v. Mass. Comm Against Discrimination) Tj ET 264.6 84.48 219.12 0.48 re f BT 483.72 86.04 TD 0.05 Tc -0.02 Tw (, 39 ) Tj -397.32 -11.52 TD 0.0165 Tc 0.0135 Tw (Mass. App. Ct. 234, 242 \(1995\); Mass. Practice, Administrative Law \2471548.) Tj 305.52 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 108 0 obj 4412 endobj 106 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 91 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 107 0 R >> endobj 111 0 obj << /Length 112 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (28) Tj -141.6 653.04 TD (Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any state or franchising ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (authority from prohibiting th) Tj 137.88 0 TD (e ownership or control of a cable system ) Tj 5.28 Tc -5.28 Tw (\205 ) Tj 211.56 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (in ) Tj -349.44 -13.8 TD (circumstances in which the state or franchising authority determines that ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (the acquisition of such a cable system may eliminate or reduce competition ) Tj T* (in the delivery of cable service in such jurisdiction.) Tj 245.4 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -245.4 -13.8 TD (47 U.S) Tj 33.36 0 TD (.C. \247533\(d\)\(2\) \(emphasis supplied\).) Tj 171.12 0 TD ( ) Tj -276.48 -25.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (This provision of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (of 1992 amended prior legislation in order to promote competition in cable services. ) Tj 409.68 0 TD (See) Tj ET 496.08 584.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 513.36 586.8 TD ( ) Tj -426.96 -27.6 TD (H.R. Rep. No. 102) Tj 89.64 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (628 at 91 attached as Exhibit K.) Tj 153.6 0 TD ( Congress explicitly gave the states or ) Tj -247.2 -27.6 TD (franchising authorities the power, and thus the responsibility, to make license control ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (decisions in a manner intended to promote or maintain competition. ) Tj 331.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 417.48 502.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 434.76 504 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 437.76 502.08 12.36 0.6 re f BT 450.12 504 TD ( See also ) Tj -363.72 -27.6 TD (Portland) Tj ET 86.4 474.48 40.68 0.6 re f BT 127.08 476.4 TD (, 43 F. Supp. 2d at 1152.) Tj 117.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -122.64 -27.6 TD (Prior t) Tj 30.36 0 TD (o the 1992 amendment, the legislation generally prohibited a franchising ) Tj -66.36 -27.6 TD (authority from denying control of a franchise license because of an applicant's ownership ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (or control of any other media interests. ) Tj 191.64 0 TD (See) Tj ET 278.04 391.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 295.32 393.6 TD ( 47 U.S.C. 533\(d\). Reading this restriction as ) Tj -208.92 -27.6 TD (absolute, the court in ) Tj 103.56 0 TD (Cable Alabama Corp. v. City of Huntsville) Tj ET 189.96 364.08 205.56 0.6 re f BT 395.52 366 TD ( held that the city could ) Tj -309.12 -27.6 TD (not deny a license transfer because of adverse effects the change in control would have on ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (competition within the city. ) Tj 138.36 0 TD (See) Tj ET 224.76 308.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 242.04 310.8 TD ( 768 F. Supp. 1484 \(N.D. Ala. 1991\). Reac) Tj 208.68 0 TD (ting to this ) Tj -364.32 -27.6 TD (interpretation, Congress amended the legislation to explicitly grant this authority. ) Tj 395.16 0 TD (See) Tj ET 481.56 281.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 498.84 283.2 TD ( ) Tj -412.44 -27.6 TD (H.R. Rep. No. 102) Tj 89.64 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (628 at 91. As provided in the legislative history, ) Tj 239.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -261.36 -27.6 TD ([The Cable Alabama] ruling clearly is inconsistent with the intent of [\247533] ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (\(c\) ) Tj 16.2 0 TD (and \(d\). Moreover, it is inconsistent with one of the major purposes of ) Tj -16.2 -13.8 TD (the Cable Act, which is to "promote competition in cable communications," ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 5.28 Tc (\205) Tj 0 Tc (. The amendment to subsection [533] \(d\) clarifies the right of the ) Tj T* (franchising authorities to promote compet) Tj 201 0 TD (ition by denying a franchise to a ) Tj -201 -13.8 TD (person if the grant of the franchise would limit competitive cable services in ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (a franchise area. The amendment ) Tj 5.28 Tc -5.28 Tw (\205 ) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw (also overturns the decision in Cable ) Tj T* (Alabama Corp." ) Tj 84 0 TD (See) Tj ET 242.4 129.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 259.68 131.4 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 262.68 129.48 12.36 0.6 re f BT 275.04 131.4 TD ( ) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -194.64 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 112 0 obj 4088 endobj 109 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 110 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 111 0 R >> endobj 114 0 obj << /Length 115 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (29) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Thus, a local franchising authority was exp) Tj 206.28 0 TD (ressly provided the right to promote ) Tj -242.28 -27.6 TD (competition by denying a license transfer if such a transfer would limit competitive cable ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (services in the authority's jurisdiction.) Tj 181.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -145.92 -27.6 TD (This designation of power to the local franchising authorities by the federal ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (governme) Tj 47.76 0 TD (nt is entirely consistent with cable regulation historically. From its first foray ) Tj -47.76 -27.6 TD (into cable regulation now fifteen years past, Congress maintained that the local franchising ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (process was to be relied upon as "the primary means of cable television regula) Tj 374.52 0 TD (tion." ) Tj 32.52 0 TD (See) Tj ET 493.44 541.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 510.72 543.6 TD ( ) Tj -424.32 -27.6 TD (Cable Communications Policy Act; H.R. Rep. No. 98) Tj 256.68 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (934 at 19 attached as Exhibit L. ) Tj -260.64 -27.6 TD (This reliance was a continuation of the local authority that had been exercised for decades ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (over cable operators pursuant to the general police powers over the ) Tj 324 0 TD (streets and public ways ) Tj -324 -27.6 TD (accessed by the systems.) Tj 117.72 0 TD ( ) Tj -81.72 -27.6 TD (In addition, subsequent legislation directed at cable services expressly preserved ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (the state and local authority's ability to counter practices intended to restrain commerce. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (See) Tj ET 86.4 348.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 103.68 350.4 TD ( 47 U.S.C. \247521 note; 47 U.S) Tj 140.76 0 TD (.C. \247152 note \(c\)\(1\). In 1992, Congress stated that its ) Tj -158.04 -27.6 TD (actions were in no way to be construed "to alter or restrict in any manner the applicability ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (of any Federal or State anti) Tj 129.6 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (trust law." 47 U.S.C. \247521 note. Later, Congress noted that ) Tj -133.56 -27.6 TD (the Telecommuni) Tj 84.24 0 TD (cation Act of 1996 "shall not be construed to modify, impair or supersede ) Tj -84.24 -27.6 TD (Federal, State, or local law unless expressly so provided in such Act or amendments." 47 ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (U.S.C. \247152 note \(c\)\(1\). Thus, the obligation of the local authority or state to maintain a) Tj 424.8 0 TD (nd ) Tj -424.8 -27.6 TD (promote competition delegated by 47 U.S.C. \247533 is a consistent application of federal ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (policy.) Tj 32.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 3.36 -27.6 TD (Congress's intent to use the franchising authority as the primary means of ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (preserving competition and protecting the public interest is further evidenced by 4) Tj 393.12 0 TD (7 U.S.C ) Tj ET endstream endobj 115 0 obj 2959 endobj 113 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 110 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 114 0 R >> endobj 117 0 obj << /Length 118 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (30) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (\247552\(c\). This provision explicitly provides, "[n]othing in this subchapter shall be ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (construed to prohibit any State or any franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any ) Tj T* (consumer protection law, to the extent not inconsistent with this subch) Tj 338.28 0 TD (apter.") Tj 31.68 0 TD ( ) Tj -333.96 -27.6 TD (Massachusetts clearly did not intend to exercise this right to protect competition ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (and consumer choice at the state level. The Massachusetts Legislature expressly ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (determined that all authority to approve transfers was to be vested in the issuing) Tj 382.68 0 TD ( authorities ) Tj -382.68 -27.6 TD (subject only to the limitation that a transfer decision not be "arbitrary or unreasonable." ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (See) Tj ET 86.4 514.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 103.68 516 TD ( M.G.L. c. 166A, \2477. As a result, the federally granted authority to promote ) Tj -17.28 -27.6 TD (competition and protect consumer choice rests with the issuing author) Tj 335.16 0 TD (ity. A decision by ) Tj -335.16 -27.6 TD (the Division to deny the local authority this power, thereby precluding consideration of the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (anti) Tj 18 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive effects of this transfer, is inconsistent with federal law and must be found ) Tj -21.96 -27.6 TD (invalid. ) Tj 39.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -3.36 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 18 0 TD (The regulations as applied are incon) Tj 173.16 0 TD (sistent with the purposes of G.L. c. 166A) Tj ET 149.4 376.08 370.08 0.6 re f BT 519.48 378 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -397.08 -27.6 TD (The refusal to allow consideration of the issue of open access by the Division is ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (also contrary to the intent of the Massachusetts Legislature and the Division's enabling act. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (General Law 166A, \2477 requires a) Tj 159.24 0 TD (n issuing authority to review any application for a license ) Tj -159.24 -27.6 TD (transfer and provides that consent thereto, "shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (withheld." The Division's strict application of Regulation 4.04 as advocated by Appellants ) Tj T* (would narrow the I) Tj 91.2 0 TD (ssuing Authority's discretion so as to preclude consideration of a factor ) Tj -91.2 -27.6 TD (significant to a municipal cable license transfer. 207 CMR 4.04. Such a restriction cannot ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (be reconciled with the purpose of the governing legislation and cannot stand. ) Tj 374.4 0 TD (See) Tj ET 460.8 155.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 478.08 157.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Nuclea) Tj 33.84 0 TD (r ) Tj ET 481.08 155.28 37.8 0.6 re f BT 86.4 129.6 TD (Metals, Inc. v. Low) Tj 93.36 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (Level Radioactive Waste Mgt. Bd.) Tj ET 86.4 127.68 263.4 0.6 re f BT 349.8 129.6 TD (, 421 Mass. 196, 211 \(1995\).) Tj 138.24 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 118 0 obj 3086 endobj 116 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 110 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 117 0 R >> endobj 120 0 obj << /Length 121 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (31) Tj -177.6 653.04 TD (An administrative agency has no authority to exceed the power conferred upon it ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (by its enabling statute. ) Tj 113.52 0 TD (See) Tj ET 199.92 679.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 217.2 681.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Massachusetts Hospital Assoc. v. Dept. of Medical Security) Tj ET 220.2 679.68 287.28 0.6 re f BT 507.48 681.6 TD (, ) Tj -421.08 -27.6 TD (412) Tj 18 0 TD ( Mass. 340, 346 \(1992\) \(statute did not empower department to set performance ) Tj -18 -27.6 TD (standards for hospital collection and credit collection practices\). It is well established that ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (an agency's rulemaking power does not include the power to make law. ) Tj 347.4 0 TD (See) Tj ET 433.8 596.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 451.08 598.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Loffred) Tj 36.24 0 TD (o v. ) Tj ET 454.08 596.88 54.24 0.6 re f BT 86.4 571.2 TD (Center for Addictive Behaviors) Tj ET 86.4 569.28 150.6 0.6 re f BT 237 571.2 TD (, 426 Mass. 541, 545 \(1998\) \(agency lacked authority to ) Tj -150.6 -27.6 TD (create private right of action when intent for such not expressed in statute\). Instead, an ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (agency maintains the much more limited power to carry into effect the pur) Tj 355.8 0 TD (poses of the ) Tj -355.8 -27.6 TD (legislature as expressed by statute. ) Tj 171 0 TD (See) Tj ET 257.4 486.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 274.68 488.4 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 277.68 486.48 12.36 0.6 re f BT 290.04 488.4 TD ( Thus, agency action must be invalidated when ) Tj -203.64 -27.6 TD (it is not consonant with the purpose of the statute. ) Tj 244.56 0 TD (See) Tj ET 330.96 458.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 348.24 460.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Nuclear Metals) Tj ET 351.24 458.88 73.44 0.6 re f BT 424.68 460.8 TD (, 412 Mass. at 211.) Tj 90.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -393.24 -27.6 TD (The Massachusetts Legislature recognized the need for a tow) Tj 292.2 0 TD (n or city to maintain ) Tj -328.2 -27.6 TD (control over its cable license in order to protect its residents and, by statute, granted it wide ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (discretion suitable for such supervision. ) Tj 196.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 283.2 376.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 300.48 378 TD ( M.G.L. c. 166A, \2477; ) Tj 103.68 0 TD (see) Tj ET 404.16 376.08 15.24 0.6 re f BT 419.4 378 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (also) Tj ET 422.4 376.08 19.32 0.6 re f BT 441.72 378 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Campbell ) Tj ET 444.72 376.08 46.68 0.6 re f BT 86.4 350.4 TD (CATV Systems Assoc. Part III v. East Bridgewater) Tj ET 86.4 348.48 244.68 0.6 re f BT 331.08 350.4 TD (, D) Tj 14.64 0 TD (ocket No. A) Tj 58.2 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (46 \(CATV 1984\) \(to ) Tj -321.48 -27.6 TD (allow Commissioner's opinion regarding applicant's corporate structure as evidence that ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (denial of license grant is unjustified would usurp the issuing authority's role in the ) Tj T* (licensing process, as it maintains ultimate respon) Tj 234.72 0 TD (sibility for grant.\). To this end, the ) Tj -234.72 -27.6 TD (Division has acknowledged that the "arbitrary or unreasonable" standard of review ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (parallels the "arbitrary or capricious" review of transfer decisions in other areas of the law. ) Tj T* (See) Tj ET 86.4 182.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 103.68 184.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Rollins Cablevision v. Somerset) Tj ET 106.68 182.88 154.8 0.6 re f BT 261.48 184.8 TD (, ) Tj 6 0 TD (Docket A) Tj 46.2 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (64 \(1988\). ) Tj 55.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -251.16 -27.6 TD (Under the arbitrary or capricious standard, deference should be given to the ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (considerable expertise and interest of a local licensing authority and its judgment should ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (not be disregarded unless deemed whimsical or not based on logical) Tj 325.92 0 TD ( analysis. ) Tj 50.28 0 TD (See) Tj ET 462.6 100.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 479.88 102 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Great ) Tj ET 482.88 100.08 26.52 0.6 re f endstream endobj 121 0 obj 4081 endobj 119 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 110 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 120 0 R >> endobj 123 0 obj << /Length 124 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (32) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Bd. of License Comm. of Springfield) Tj ET 86.4 707.28 321.48 0.6 re f BT 407.88 709.2 TD (, 387 Mass. 833, 837) Tj 100.32 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (38 ) Tj -425.76 -27.6 TD (\(1983\) \(recognizing degree of expertise of local authority in alcoholic beverage ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (regulation\); ) Tj 58.8 0 TD (Cf.) Tj ET 145.2 652.08 15 0.6 re f BT 160.2 654 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (McDonald's Corp. v. East Longmeadow) Tj ET 163.2 652.08 192.12 0.6 re f BT 355.32 654 TD (, 24 Mass. A) Tj 60.96 0 TD (pp. Ct. 904, 905) Tj 77.4 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (06 ) Tj -411.24 -27.6 TD (\(local authority permitted to look at factors not directly connected to food preparation and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (delivery in denying food license\); ) Tj 163.92 0 TD (Mosey Caf\351, Inc. v. Licensing Bd. for City of Boston) Tj ET 250.32 596.88 253.92 0.6 re f BT 504.24 598.8 TD (, ) Tj -417.84 -27.6 TD (338 Mass. 199, 205 \(1958\) \(statute without standards f) Tj 262.44 0 TD (or granting entertainment licenses ) Tj -262.44 -27.6 TD (confers quasi) Tj 63.48 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (judicial authority to do so in a manner that is not unreasonable or arbitrary\). ) Tj 365.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -433.2 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Regulation 4.04 purports to restrict the issuing authority's consideration of a license ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (transfer to only four factors deemed ) Tj 174.48 0 TD (germane by the Division. Such a restriction is entirely ) Tj -174.48 -27.6 TD (at odds with the Massachusetts Legislature's intent if, as here, a relevant and reasonable ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (concern cannot be addressed as a result. ) Tj 197.04 0 TD (See) Tj ET 283.44 431.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 300.72 433.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Nuclear Metals, Inc.) Tj ET 303.72 431.28 97.44 0.6 re f BT 401.16 433.2 TD (, 421 Mass. at 211. ) Tj -314.76 -27.6 TD (Application of Regula) Tj 106.44 0 TD (tion 4.04 to prevent the Issuing Authorities from considering the ) Tj -106.44 -27.6 TD (issue of open access in this transfer decision clearly exceeds the Division's mandate to ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (carry into effect the purposes of the statute and instead constitutes unauthorized ) Tj T* (lawmaking. ) Tj 65.16 0 TD (See) Tj ET 151.56 320.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 168.84 322.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (L) Tj 7.08 0 TD (offredo) Tj ET 171.84 320.88 42.24 0.6 re f BT 214.08 322.8 TD (, 426 Mass. at 545. Imposing these limits impermissibly ) Tj -127.68 -27.6 TD (narrows the ample discretion granted the Issuing Authorities pursuant c. 166A, \2477 and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (cannot survive scrutiny. ) Tj 120.48 0 TD (See) Tj ET 206.88 265.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 224.16 267.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Mass. Hospital Assoc) Tj ET 227.16 265.68 104.28 0.6 re f BT 331.44 267.6 TD (., 412 Mass. at 346. Due to the serious ) Tj -245.04 -27.6 TD (competition imp) Tj 79.08 0 TD (lications of AT&T's closed access policy and its sudden conversion into an ) Tj -79.08 -27.6 TD (open access advocate, the requirement that open access be provided to customers is ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable and therefore must withstand Division review.) Tj 408.12 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 124 0 obj 3369 endobj 122 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 110 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 123 0 R >> endobj 126 0 obj << /Length 127 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (33) Tj -213.6 652.8 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (C.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (The Divi) Tj 44.4 0 TD (sion Should Waive Regulation 4.04 For Consideration Of Open ) Tj -44.4 -13.8 TD (Access In The Transfer Decision) Tj 165.96 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -201.96 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Division could easily avoid invalidation of its own regulations in this unique ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (circumstance by waiving the application of Regulation 4.04. Doing so wou) Tj 361.92 0 TD (ld be consistent ) Tj -361.92 -27.6 TD (with the purpose of the waiver provision and the intent of both Congress and the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Massachusetts Legislature as described above. The Division should upon its own ) Tj T* (initiative, and the Issuing Authorities hereby request the Division to, waive ) Tj 362.64 0 TD (Regulation ) Tj -362.64 -27.6 TD (4.04 for the purposes of this appeal. In support of this request for waiver, the Issuing ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Authorities submit the information provided in the Magistrate's Report, the regional ) Tj T* (hearings, the Cambridge hearings, and relevant correspondence.) Tj 306.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -306.48 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD ( ) Tj 33 -13.8 TD 0 0 1 rg (1. ) Tj 15 0 TD (T) Tj 7.32 0 TD (he negative effects on competition of this transfer justify the waiver of ) Tj ET 137.4 431.28 347.52 0.6 re f BT 140.4 419.4 TD (Regulation 4.04) Tj ET 140.4 417.48 76.56 0.6 re f BT 216.96 419.4 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -130.56 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Division has the authority to waive particular provisions of the regulations ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (when doing so would be "consistent with the public interest." ) Tj 300 0 TD (See) Tj ET 386.4 362.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 403.68 364.2 TD ( 207 CMR ) Tj 53.76 0 TD (2.04; ) Tj 27.36 0 TD (In Re ) Tj ET 484.8 362.28 26.04 0.6 re f BT 86.4 336.6 TD (Amendment of 207 CMR 4.01) Tj 147 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (4.06) Tj ET 86.4 334.68 171.96 0.6 re f BT 258.36 336.6 TD ( at \26661. In its own words, the Division noted, ) Tj 221.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -321.72 -27.6 TD (the [Division's] role must be flexible given the current trends of the ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (telecommunications industry. Trying to craft and interpret transfer ) Tj T* (regulations at a time whe) Tj 120.36 0 TD (n technologies, corporate structures, and industries ) Tj -120.36 -13.8 TD (are changing and converging is difficult. The [Division] has determined, ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (therefore, that it is prudent to establish a waiver provision in its transfer ) Tj T* (regulations. . . [to] allow the [Division] the nece) Tj 231 0 TD (ssary flexibility to evaluate ) Tj -231 -13.8 TD (novel circumstances surrounding transfer proceedings. ) Tj 267.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -267.48 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD (In Re Amendment of 207 CMR 4.01) Tj 176.04 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (4.06) Tj ET 122.4 196.68 201 0.6 re f BT 323.4 198.6 TD ( at \26660.) Tj 35.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -236.04 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (To the extent that the promotion of competition required by the federal government ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (is not subsumed within the consideratio) Tj 190.32 0 TD (n of "legal ability," the open access issue is of such ) Tj -190.32 -27.6 TD (relevance and importance that the Division must waive application of Regulation 4.04 on ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (its own initiative.) Tj 83.76 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 127 0 obj 3617 endobj 125 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 110 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 126 0 R >> endobj 130 0 obj << /Length 131 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (34) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Although Regulation 4.04 may serve its purpose for a majority of common license ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (transfers, t) Tj 50.52 0 TD (his request by AT&T implicates public policy questions of "enormous ) Tj -50.52 -27.6 TD (importance" that reach far beyond what a narrow interpretation of the Regulation can ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (properly address. ) Tj 88.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 174.48 624.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 191.76 626.4 TD ( Magistrate's Report at 18. As AT&T's Canadian submission ) Tj -105.36 -27.6 TD (underscores, the provi) Tj 106.08 0 TD (sion of open access is critical to removing a situation where ) Tj -106.08 -27.6 TD (competition in a major market is unduly impaired. ) Tj 246.84 0 TD (See) Tj ET 333.24 569.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 350.52 571.2 TD ( AT&T Comments at i. ) Tj 117.6 0 TD ( ) Tj -381.72 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In enacting Regulation 4.04, the Division claims to have followed reasoning dating ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (as far back as 1983. ) Tj 100.68 0 TD (See) Tj ET 187.08 514.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 204.36 516 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Bay Sho) Tj 40.56 0 TD (re Cable) Tj ET 207.36 514.08 80.76 0.6 re f BT 288.12 516 TD (, Docket No. A) Tj 72.84 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (55 ) Tj 15 0 TD (citing) Tj ET 379.92 514.08 27.24 0.6 re f BT 407.16 516 TD ( CATV Commission ) Tj -320.76 -27.6 TD (Advisory, March 9, 1983. In fact, ) Tj 166.08 0 TD (Bay Shore Cable) Tj ET 252.48 486.48 80.76 0.6 re f BT 333.24 488.4 TD ( allowed consideration of additional ) Tj -246.84 -27.6 TD (factors, including character and performance in other communities. In any event, a narrow ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (interpretation of the criteri) Tj 126.72 0 TD (a enumerated in 4.04 does not accommodate consideration of the ) Tj -126.72 -27.6 TD (extensive and damaging effect upon competition raised by the transfer at hand. This is ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (exactly the convergence of technology and industries for which the waiver was enacted. ) Tj T* (Failure to exerci) Tj 78.48 0 TD (se this waiver power is inconsistent with the Division's own regulations ) Tj -78.48 -27.6 TD (and contrary to the powers expressly delegated by the federal government.) Tj 355.56 0 TD ( ) Tj -355.56 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (As the Special Magistrate noted, this transfer "is an event far different from the ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (hundreds, if not thousand) Tj 121.92 0 TD (s of license transfers that have taken place to date in the ) Tj -121.92 -27.6 TD (Commonwealth ) Tj 5.28 Tc (\205) Tj 0 Tc (. The transfer obviously raises a host of public policy questions." ) Tj 408.12 0 TD (See) Tj ET 494.52 238.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 511.8 240 TD ( ) Tj -425.4 -27.6 TD (Magistrate's Report at 20. The Division must waive application of Regulation 4.04 in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (order to confront thes) Tj 103.44 0 TD (e public policy questions. It should do so in the transfer proceeding, ) Tj -103.44 -27.6 TD (so that the appropriate resolution is uniform, speedy, and protective of the public interest. ) Tj 437.4 0 TD ( ) Tj -437.4 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 131 0 obj 3271 endobj 128 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 129 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 130 0 R >> endobj 133 0 obj << /Length 134 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (35) Tj -177.84 653.04 TD 0 0 1 rg (2.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 27.24 0 TD (AT&T received sufficient notice and opportunity to address the issue of ) Tj ET 158.4 707.28 344.28 0.6 re f BT 158.4 695.4 TD (open acces) Tj 52.08 0 TD (s) Tj ET 158.4 693.48 56.76 0.6 re f BT 215.16 695.4 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -93 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -35.76 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Pursuant to Regulation 2.04, North Andover previously requested a waiver of ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Regulation 4.04 for its determination of the license transfer. 207 CMR 2.04. This request ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (was denied by the Division on the grounds that it was untimely and, based upon) Tj 382.56 0 TD ( an ) Tj -382.56 -27.6 TD (erroneous assumption, that the parties did not have adequate notice to respond at the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (regional hearings to open access advocates. ) Tj 213.84 0 TD (See) Tj ET 300.24 555.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 317.52 557.4 TD ( Division correspondence dated September ) Tj -231.12 -27.6 TD (23, 1999. attached as Exhibit M. ) Tj 159 0 TD ( ) Tj -159 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (G.L. c. 30A, \24711 requires that parties to ) Tj 193.44 0 TD (a hearing be provided sufficient notice of ) Tj -229.44 -27.6 TD (the issues so that they have "a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present evidence and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (argument." M.G.L. c. 30A, \2477; ) Tj 153.6 0 TD (see) Tj ET 240 445.08 15.24 0.6 re f BT 255.24 447 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (also) Tj ET 258.24 445.08 19.32 0.6 re f BT 277.56 447 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. ) Tj ET 280.56 445.08 214.56 0.6 re f BT 86.4 419.4 TD (Dept. of Public Util) Tj ET 86.4 417.48 94.68 0.6 re f BT 181.08 419.4 TD (., 372 Mass. 678, 686) Tj 103.32 0 TD ( \(1977\). In practice, the notice must "sufficiently ) Tj -198 -27.6 TD (apprise" a party of the relevant issues. ) Tj 187.68 0 TD (See) Tj ET 274.08 389.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 291.36 391.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (O'Brien v. Div. of Employment and Security) Tj ET 294.36 389.88 213.72 0.6 re f BT 508.08 391.8 TD (, ) Tj -421.68 -27.6 TD (393 Mass. 482, 484 \(1984\). The record of the regional hearings and subsequent meetings ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (between AT&T and the Issu) Tj 135.36 0 TD (ing Authorities demonstrate not only that AT&T and ) Tj -135.36 -27.6 TD (MediaOne were sufficiently apprised, but took every advantage to present evidence and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (argument.) Tj 48.12 0 TD ( ) Tj -48.12 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Unfortunately, the Division did not have the opportunity to review the Magistrate's ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Report prior to denying ) Tj 115.44 0 TD (North Andover's request for waiver.) Tj 172.56 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (12) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( Examination of the Report ) Tj -296.16 -27.6 TD (dispels any concerns the Division may have harbored that AT&T and MediaOne could not ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (sufficiently respond to the open access issue. To the contrary, "[t]here was considerable ) Tj T* (discussion durin) Tj 78.36 0 TD (g the hearings about the issue of 'open access'." Magistrate's Report at 17. ) Tj -78.36 -27.6 TD (From the time the issue was first raised on August 4, AT&T had nine additional hearings ) Tj 0 -29.28 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 89.04 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 86.52 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (12) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0091 Tc 0.0209 Tw ( The Division announced its decision on September 23, one day before the Report was issued.) Tj 377.16 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 134 0 obj 3741 endobj 132 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 129 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 133 0 R >> endobj 136 0 obj << /Length 137 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (36) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (and over a month to present its side of the debate. ) Tj 243.96 0 TD (See) Tj ET 330.36 707.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 347.64 709.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (LaPointe v. License Bd. of ) Tj ET 350.64 707.28 127.92 0.6 re f BT 86.4 681.6 TD (Worce) Tj 31.92 0 TD (ster) Tj ET 86.4 679.68 49.2 0.6 re f BT 135.6 681.6 TD (, 389 Mass 454, 458 \(1983\) \(insufficient notice of hearing cured at first hearing ) Tj -49.2 -27.6 TD (and continuation for one week deemed sufficient\). ) Tj 247.08 0 TD ( ) Tj -247.08 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Indeed, AT&T took full advantage of these opportunities. It spent significant time ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (and resources advocating its view) Tj 161.52 0 TD (, including introduction of a panel of experts to put its ) Tj -161.52 -27.6 TD (views formally on record. ) Tj 129.36 0 TD (See) Tj ET 215.76 569.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 233.04 571.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 236.04 569.28 12.36 0.6 re f BT 248.4 571.2 TD ( On another occasion, an AT&T employee spoke at ) Tj -162 -27.6 TD (great length specifically concerning the legal and non) Tj 255.6 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (legal justifications for a closed ) Tj -259.56 -27.6 TD (system. ) Tj 42 0 TD (See) Tj ET 128.4 514.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 145.68 516 TD ( Foxboro Regio) Tj 75.24 0 TD (nal Hearing at 59) Tj 82.68 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (66. According to the Magistrate, "the ) Tj -221.16 -27.6 TD (discussions were frequently vigorous, sometimes contentious." ) Tj 307.08 0 TD (Id.) Tj ET 393.48 486.48 12.72 0.6 re f BT 406.2 488.4 TD ( at 3. As evidenced by ) Tj 112.08 0 TD ( ) Tj -431.88 -27.6 TD (the section of the report devoted strictly to the numerous competing arguments raised ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (during the hearings, t) Tj 101.64 0 TD (he open access issue was extensively covered during the regional ) Tj -101.64 -27.6 TD (hearings. ) Tj 49.44 0 TD (See) Tj ET 135.84 403.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 153.12 405.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 156.12 403.68 12.36 0.6 re f BT 168.48 405.6 TD ( at 18) Tj 26.64 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (20. It is clear, then, that Appellants received sufficient notice so ) Tj -112.68 -27.6 TD (that they could respond and completely address the issue of open access in a meaningful ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (manner. ) Tj 41.88 0 TD ( Moreover, AT&T sought and was granted numerous additional opportunities to ) Tj -41.88 -27.6 TD (address local officials directly in meetings and written communications.) Tj 344.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -344.76 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Cambridge hearing likewise provided AT&T a meaningful opportunity to ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (present its side of the open acce) Tj 152.28 0 TD (ss argument. ) Tj 66.48 0 TD (See) Tj ET 305.16 265.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 322.44 267.6 TD ( Cambridge Hearing at 39) Tj 124.2 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (42, attached as ) Tj -364.2 -27.6 TD (Exhibit D. In addition, Cambridge officials and Appellants met and exchanged ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (correspondence on a number of occasions during which the issue of open access was ) Tj T* (discussed. ) Tj 54.96 0 TD (See) Tj ET 141.36 182.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 158.64 184.8 TD ( Exhibit E. This incl) Tj 103.2 0 TD (uded a three page letter from AT&T to the Cambridge ) Tj -175.44 -27.6 TD (City Manager exclusively directed at the issue of open access. ) Tj 302.64 0 TD (See) Tj ET 389.04 155.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 406.32 157.2 TD ( November 3, 1999 ) Tj -319.92 -27.6 TD (correspondence.) Tj 78 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 137 0 obj 3666 endobj 135 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 129 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 136 0 R >> endobj 139 0 obj << /Length 140 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (37) Tj -213.6 652.8 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (D.) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 24.36 0 TD (Regulation 4.04 Substantially Impairs the Issuing Authorities' Contractual ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (Rights) Tj 33.36 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -69.36 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 -13.8 TD (Even if th) Tj 47.28 0 TD (e Division finds generally that Regulation 4.04 should be applied in these ) Tj -83.28 -27.6 TD (circumstances, specific application of these restriction to these license agreements is ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (impermissible because it would substantially impair the Issuing Authorities' contractual ) Tj T* (righ) Tj 19.2 0 TD (ts in a manner unnecessary to serve an important public purpose. ) Tj 316.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 421.68 583.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 438.96 585 TD ( U.S. Const. Art. ) Tj -352.56 -27.6 TD (I, \24710; ) Tj 34.08 0 TD (Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus) Tj ET 120.48 555.48 188.28 0.6 re f BT 308.76 557.4 TD (, 438 U.S. 234 \(1978\). ) Tj 113.28 0 TD ( ) Tj -335.64 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Supreme Court has developed a three) Tj 200.88 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (step test to determine if subsequent ) Tj -240.84 -27.6 TD (legislation has imp) Tj 90.6 0 TD (ermissibly impaired contractual rights. ) Tj 190.68 0 TD (See) Tj ET 367.68 500.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 384.96 502.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Spannaus) Tj ET 387.96 500.28 45.96 0.6 re f BT 433.92 502.2 TD (, 438 U.S. 234 ) Tj -347.52 -27.6 TD (\(1978\). First, the court must determine that a subsequent law has in fact impaired a ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (contractual relationship. ) Tj 121.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 208.2 445.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 225.48 447 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 228.48 445.08 12.36 0.6 re f BT 240.84 447 TD ( at 244; ) Tj 39 0 TD (Parella v. Retirement Bd. of R.I. Employee's ) Tj ET 279.84 445.08 213.12 0.6 re f BT 86.4 419.4 TD (Retirement Sys) Tj 73.32 0 TD (tem) Tj ET 86.4 417.48 91.32 0.6 re f BT 177.72 419.4 TD (, 173 F.3d 46, 59 \(1st Cir. 1999\). Second, it must then decide whether ) Tj -91.32 -27.6 TD (this impairment is substantial. ) Tj 150.12 0 TD (See) Tj ET 236.52 389.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 253.8 391.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Spannaus) Tj ET 256.8 389.88 45.96 0.6 re f BT 302.76 391.8 TD (, 438 U.S. at 244; ) Tj 87.36 0 TD (Little v. Comm. of Health ) Tj ET 390.12 389.88 124.44 0.6 re f BT 86.4 364.2 TD (& Hospitals of Cambridge) Tj ET 86.4 362.28 126.72 0.6 re f BT 213.12 364.2 TD (, 395 Mass. 535, 555 \(1985\). In making this determination, it ) Tj -126.72 -27.6 TD (shou) Tj 22.68 0 TD (ld consider how a contract is affected and whether the abridged right is "replaced by ) Tj -22.68 -27.6 TD (an arguably comparable security provision." ) Tj 217.2 0 TD (See) Tj ET 303.6 307.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 320.88 309 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (United States Trust Co. of New York v. ) Tj ET 323.88 307.08 190.8 0.6 re f BT 86.4 281.4 TD (New Jersey) Tj ET 86.4 279.48 55.2 0.6 re f BT 141.6 281.4 TD (, 431 U.S. 1, 19 \(1977\). Finally, the court must then determine if the ) Tj -55.2 -27.6 TD (substantial impairment is reasonable and necessary to "meet an important general social ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (problem." ) Tj 53.76 0 TD (See) Tj ET 140.16 224.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 157.44 226.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Spannaus) Tj ET 160.44 224.28 45.96 0.6 re f BT 206.4 226.2 TD (, 438 U.S. at 247.) Tj 84 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (13) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.84 0 TD ( ) Tj -216 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Application of Regulation 4.04 to the Cambridge, Somerville, and North Andover ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (license agreements violates the Contract Cla) Tj 212.52 0 TD (use. First, a contractual relationship ) Tj -212.52 -27.6 TD (unquestionably exists between the Issuing Authorities and MediaOne, and the Issuing ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 118.32 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 115.8 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (13) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.015 Tc 0.015 Tw ( Although a court generally grants deference) Tj 177.24 0 TD 0.0109 Tc 0.0191 Tw ( to an agency's regulations adopted pursuant to statute, action ) Tj -183.72 -11.4 TD 0.0187 Tc 0.0113 Tw (based upon "an incorrect interpretation of a statute is not entitled to deference." ) Tj 321.96 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 408.36 90.84 14.4 0.48 re f BT 422.76 92.4 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD 0.003 Tc 0.027 Tw (Mass. Hospital Assoc.) Tj ET 425.28 90.84 89.16 0.48 re f BT 514.44 92.4 TD 0.03 Tc 0 Tw (, ) Tj -428.04 -11.52 TD 0.031 Tc -0.001 Tw (412 Mass. at 345) Tj 68.52 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.05 Tc (46.) Tj 12.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 140 0 obj 4864 endobj 138 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 129 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 139 0 R >> endobj 142 0 obj << /Length 143 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (38) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (Authorities' contractual rights concerning the transfer approval process are restricted by ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Regulation 4.04. ) Tj 85.56 0 TD (See) Tj ET 171.96 679.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 189.24 681.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Eagerton) Tj ET 192.24 679.68 43.08 0.6 re f BT 235.32 681.6 TD (, 462 U.S. ) Tj 51.36 0 TD (174, 189 \(1983\) \(state law prohibiting certain tax ) Tj -200.28 -27.6 TD (allocations by company restricted contract options\). ) Tj 256.56 0 TD ( ) Tj -256.56 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Moreover, these rights are substantially impaired by forcing the Issuing Authorities ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (to narrow their considerations as required by Regulation 4.04. ) Tj 299.4 0 TD ( Under its license ) Tj -299.4 -27.6 TD (agreement, Cambridge expressly reserved the supervisory capacity to inquire into "whether ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the proposed change of control and ownership is in the public interest." Cambridge ) Tj T* (License, \2472.2\(d\) attached as Exhibit N.) Tj 186.84 0 TD ( ) Tj -186.84 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Likewise, both Somervi) Tj 114.72 0 TD (lle and North Andover by contract reserved the right to ) Tj -150.72 -27.6 TD (consider, amongst other things, experience in the cable industry, character qualifications, ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (performance in other communities, and "other lawful and reasonable criteria in accordance ) Tj T* (with applicable la) Tj 85.2 0 TD (ws." North Andover License, \2472.4\(b\) attached as Exhibit O; Somerville ) Tj -85.2 -27.6 TD (License, \2472.6\(b\) attached as Exhibit P \(right to consider "any other criteria allowable under ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (law"\). ) Tj 35.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -35.04 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (At the time the contracts were executed, an issuing authority in Massachusetts wa) Tj 391.32 0 TD (s ) Tj -427.32 -27.6 TD (entitled to base its transfer decision on any concern as long as it was reasonable and not ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (arbitrary. ) Tj 49.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 136.2 265.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 153.48 267.6 TD ( M.G.L. c. 166A, \2477. Moreover, as discussed in detail above, federal law ) Tj -67.08 -27.6 TD (explicitly authorized an issuing authority to deny a cable license transfe) Tj 342.48 0 TD (r where such a ) Tj -342.48 -27.6 TD (change in control would limit competition in the provision of cable services. ) Tj 372.24 0 TD (See) Tj ET 458.64 210.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 475.92 212.4 TD ( 47 ) Tj -389.52 -27.6 TD (U.S.C. \247533\(d\)\(2\).) Tj 90.24 0 TD ( ) Tj -90.24 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Application of Regulation 4.04 to preclude consideration of open access to the ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Licenses abolishes the Issuing Authorities' contractual ) Tj 262.44 0 TD (right to consider the effects of the ) Tj -262.44 -27.6 TD (transfer upon consumer interests and fails to replace it with any comparable security ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 76.92 439.2 0.6 re f BT 525.6 74.4 TD ( ) Tj -439.2 -12 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 143 0 obj 3369 endobj 141 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 129 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 142 0 R >> endobj 145 0 obj << /Length 146 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (39) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (provision. ) Tj 54.36 0 TD (See) Tj ET 140.76 707.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 158.04 709.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (United States Trust) Tj ET 161.04 707.28 92.64 0.6 re f BT 253.68 709.2 TD (, 431 U.S. at 19. This clearly constitutes a substantial ) Tj -167.28 -27.6 TD (impairment of the license agreements. ) Tj 188.52 0 TD (S) Tj 6.72 0 TD (ee) Tj ET 274.92 679.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 292.2 681.6 TD ( Spannaus, 438 U.S. at 244.) Tj 132.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -338.76 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 27 0 TD (Significantly, these restrictions do not confront an important social problem. ) Tj 372.24 0 TD (See) Tj ET 485.64 652.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 502.92 654 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 505.92 652.08 12.36 0.6 re f BT 518.28 654 TD ( ) Tj -431.88 -27.6 TD (at 247. On the contrary, eliminating their right to consider issues characterized by ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Magistrate Beard as of "enormous importance" underm) Tj 264.84 0 TD (ines the Issuing Authorities' ability ) Tj -264.84 -27.6 TD (to protect the interests of their residents. ) Tj 198.72 0 TD (See) Tj ET 285.12 569.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 302.4 571.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 305.4 569.28 12.36 0.6 re f BT 317.76 571.2 TD ( at 249. In such circumstances, the ) Tj -231.36 -27.6 TD (deference granted the Division as to the necessity and reasonableness of a particular ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (measure "simply cannot stand." ) Tj 157.08 0 TD (Spannaus) Tj ET 243.48 514.08 45.96 0.6 re f BT 289.44 516 TD (, ) Tj 6 0 TD (438 U.S. at 247; ) Tj 81.36 0 TD (Mass. Hospital Assoc.) Tj ET 376.8 514.08 107.28 0.6 re f BT 484.08 516 TD (, 412 ) Tj -397.68 -27.6 TD (Mass. at 345) Tj 60.96 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (46.) Tj 15 0 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj -79.92 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg (E.) Tj 11.04 0 TD ( ) Tj 15.96 0 TD (Regulation 4.04 Should Not Be Applied Retroactively) Tj 272.4 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -263.4 -27.36 TD /F0 12 Tf (Even if the Division finds that application of Regulation 4.04 is not a violation of ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (the Contracts Clause, the Regulation and the rest) Tj 233.64 0 TD (rictions imposed thereunder cannot be ) Tj -233.64 -27.6 TD (applied retroactively to the Cambridge and Somerville license agreements. ) Tj 363.12 0 TD (See) Tj ET 449.52 376.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 466.8 378 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Salem v. ) Tj ET 469.8 376.08 42 0.6 re f BT 86.4 350.4 TD (Warner Amex Cable Communications, Inc.) Tj ET 86.4 348.48 208.32 0.6 re f BT 294.72 350.4 TD ( 392 Mass. 663 \(1984\). The license ) Tj -208.32 -27.6 TD (agreements were executed before Regulation 4.04 or any ) Tj 275.04 0 TD (regulation interpreting the ) Tj -275.04 -27.6 TD (relevant statute was adopted, therefore the applicable law for this appeal must be whether ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (consent to AT&T's license transfer was arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld, especially in ) Tj T* (light of their motive of preserving competitio) Tj 216.96 0 TD (n. ) Tj 15 0 TD (See) Tj ET 318.36 238.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 335.64 240 TD ( M.G.L. 166A, \2477.) Tj 89.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -302.28 -27.6 TD (As a general rule, the law in existence at the time an agreement is executed ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (necessarily becomes part of the agreement, and amendments to the law after execution are ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (not incorporated unless the contract unequivocally demonstrates t) Tj 314.16 0 TD (he parties' intent to so ) Tj -314.16 -27.6 TD (incorporate. ) Tj 63.48 0 TD (See) Tj ET 149.88 127.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 167.16 129.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Feakes v. Bozyczko) Tj ET 170.16 127.68 95.76 0.6 re f BT 265.92 129.6 TD (, 373 Mass. 633, 636 \(1977\). In ) Tj 159.96 0 TD (Salem) Tj ET 425.88 127.68 30 0.6 re f BT 455.88 129.6 TD (, the Supreme ) Tj -369.48 -27.6 TD (Judicial Court held that amended procedures for cable rate regulation did not apply to a ) Tj ET endstream endobj 146 0 obj 4017 endobj 144 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 129 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 145 0 R >> endobj 149 0 obj << /Length 150 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (40) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (cable license signed two years prior because the lice) Tj 249.48 0 TD (nse did not clearly indicate that the ) Tj -249.48 -27.6 TD (parties intended to incorporate future amendments of the legislation and regulations. ) Tj 410.16 0 TD (See) Tj ET 496.56 679.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 513.84 681.6 TD ( ) Tj -427.44 -27.6 TD (392 Mass. at 667) Tj 81.96 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (69. The Court found the absence of the words "and amendments thereto" ) Tj -85.92 -27.6 TD (in the license agreement as significant) Tj 182.4 0 TD ( in determining that there was no intent of the parties ) Tj -182.4 -27.6 TD (to incorporate future changes. ) Tj 148.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 235.2 596.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 252.48 598.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 255.48 596.88 12.36 0.6 re f BT 267.84 598.8 TD ( at 667.) Tj 35.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -181.08 -27.6 TD (Regulation 4.04 unquestionably altered an issuing authority's scope of ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (considerations in a license transfer decision. First, Appellants assert that the) Tj 366.36 0 TD ( Division's ) Tj -366.36 -27.6 TD (decision in ) Tj 55.32 0 TD (Bay Shore Cable TV Assoc. v. Weymouth) Tj ET 141.72 514.08 203.04 0.6 re f BT 344.76 516 TD ( effectively established Division ) Tj -258.36 -27.6 TD (policy prior to the execution of the licenses. CATV Docket A) Tj 297.96 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (55 \(1985\). Appellees agree ) Tj -301.92 -27.6 TD (that the Division may, in the interest of consistency, view prior adjud) Tj 331.32 0 TD (ication as guiding. ) Tj -331.32 -27.6 TD (However, as the Supreme Court pointed out, this is "far from saying) Tj 5.28 Tc -5.28 Tw (\205 ) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw (that commands, ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (decisions, or policies announced in adjudication are 'rules' in the sense that they must, ) Tj T* (without more, be obeyed by the affected public." ) Tj 239.28 0 TD (NLRB v. Wym) Tj 73.08 0 TD (an) Tj 11.28 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (Gordon) Tj ET 325.68 376.08 124.92 0.6 re f BT 450.6 378 TD (, 394 U.S. 759, ) Tj -364.2 -27.6 TD (765) Tj 18 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (66 \(1969\). Further weakening this position is the fact that ) Tj 278.52 0 TD (Bay Shore Cable) Tj ET 386.88 348.48 80.76 0.6 re f BT 467.64 350.4 TD ( allowed ) Tj -381.24 -27.6 TD (for considerations beyond the four enumerated in 4.04 and was decided only a month prior ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (to the execution of the Cambridge License, hardly the ) Tj 260.28 0 TD (time necessary to establish firm ) Tj -260.28 -27.6 TD (Division policy. CATV Docket No. A) Tj 188.52 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (55. Second, contrary to Appellants' assertion, the ) Tj -192.48 -27.6 TD (Division in 1988 agreed that an issuing authority was permitted to review factors other ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (than management, technical expertise, financia) Tj 224.76 0 TD (l capability and character so long as these ) Tj -224.76 -27.6 TD (other considerations were not arbitrary or unreasonable. ) Tj 273.24 0 TD (See) Tj ET 359.64 182.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 376.92 184.8 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Somerset) Tj ET 379.92 182.88 44.64 0.6 re f BT 424.56 184.8 TD (, Docket A) Tj 52.2 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (64 at 4) Tj 32.64 0 TD (-) Tj -426.96 -27.6 TD (5, ) Tj 12 0 TD (explaining) Tj ET 98.4 155.28 50.64 0.6 re f BT 149.04 157.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Bay Shore Cable) Tj ET 152.04 155.28 80.76 0.6 re f BT 232.8 157.2 TD (, Docket A) Tj 52.2 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (55. Thus, the applicable law concerning the ) Tj -202.56 -27.6 TD (discretion of an issuing authority was) Tj 179.04 0 TD ( substantively changed in 1995 by the Commission ) Tj ET endstream endobj 150 0 obj 3786 endobj 147 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 148 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 149 0 R >> endobj 152 0 obj << /Length 153 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (41) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (Report and Order promulgating Regulation 4.04. ) Tj 239.76 0 TD (See) Tj ET 326.16 707.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 343.44 709.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (In Re Amendment of 207 CMR ) Tj ET 346.44 707.28 152.04 0.6 re f BT 86.4 681.6 TD (4.01) Tj 21 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (4.06 at 18) Tj ET 86.4 679.68 72.6 0.6 re f BT 159 681.6 TD (. ) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -42.6 -27.6 TD (There is no language in either the Cambridge or Somerville license) Tj 321.12 0 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj 3 0 TD /F0 12 Tf (that "clearly ) Tj -360.12 -27.6 TD (establishes" the parties' int) Tj 127.08 0 TD (ent to incorporate changes in the existing law into their ) Tj -127.08 -27.6 TD (agreement. To the contrary, both licenses reiterate the standard of review in effect at the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (time of the agreement, i.e. that consent shall not be unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld. ) Tj T* (See) Tj ET 86.4 541.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 103.68 543.6 TD ( Cambridg) Tj 50.88 0 TD (e License \2472.2\(a\); Somerville License \2472.6\(a\). Moreover, in the absence of ) Tj -68.16 -27.6 TD (defining standards, the parties emphasized particular factors that would constitute ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (appropriate considerations in a license transfer. ) Tj 232.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 318.48 486.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 335.76 488.4 TD ( Cambridge License \2472.2\(d\); ) Tj -249.36 -27.6 TD (Somerville Lic) Tj 71.4 0 TD (ense \2472.6\(b\). Thus, the alteration of the substantive rights of the parties ) Tj -71.4 -27.6 TD (under these license agreements would be an unlawful retroactive application of Regulation ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (4.04. ) Tj 30 0 TD (See) Tj ET 116.4 403.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 133.68 405.6 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Salem) Tj ET 136.68 403.68 30 0.6 re f BT 166.68 405.6 TD (, 392 Mass. at 668) Tj 87.96 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (69.) Tj 15 0 TD ( ) Tj -187.2 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (F.) Tj 10.2 0 TD ( ) Tj 25.8 0 TD (Conditional approval is an appropriate exercise) Tj 244.44 0 TD ( of the Issuing Authorities' ) Tj -244.44 -13.8 TD (pre) Tj 17.28 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (existing rights under the license agreements) Tj 223.32 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj 3 0 TD ( ) Tj -283.56 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The appellants represent the Issuing Authorities' conditional approval subject to ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (open access as an amendment to the licensing agreements. On the contrary, the Issuing) Tj 421.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -421.2 -27.6 TD (Authorities' consideration of open access is the legitimate exercise of a right reserved ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (under the agreements and applicable law.) Tj 198 0 TD ( ) Tj -198 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (As explained above, the applicable law authorizes the Issuing Authorities to deny a ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (request for license transfer where such ) Tj 187.32 0 TD (a change in control would limit competition in the ) Tj -187.32 -27.6 TD (provision of cable services. ) Tj 137.04 0 TD (See) Tj ET 223.44 169.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 240.72 171 TD ( 47 U.S.C. 533\(d\)\(2\); M.G.L. c. 166A, \2477. This power ) Tj -154.32 -27.6 TD (necessarily includes the "lesser power to impose conditions under which it will permit a ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (change in control." ) Tj 96.84 0 TD (Portland) Tj ET 183.24 113.88 40.68 0.6 re f BT 223.92 115.8 TD (, 43 F. Supp.2d at 1152. Thus, the conditional approvals by ) Tj ET endstream endobj 153 0 obj 3570 endobj 151 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 148 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 152 0 R >> endobj 155 0 obj << /Length 156 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (42) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (Quincy and North Andover are an appropriate exercise of their rights under the law and do ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (not constitute any amendment of the licensing agreements.) Tj 281.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -281.04 -27.84 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (G.) Tj 12.24 0 TD ( ) Tj 23.76 0 TD (Failure to Provide Open Access Involves Appe) Tj 237 0 TD (llant's Legal Ability and ) Tj -237 -13.8 TD (Technical Expertise to Operate the Cable System under the Existing License.) Tj 393.36 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -429.36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Division need not find its own regulations invalid. Alternatively, the Division ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (could find that the Issuing Authorities' denials or condition) Tj 282.24 0 TD (al approvals of the transfer ) Tj -282.24 -27.6 TD (application are based upon consideration of transferee's legal ability and technical expertise ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (to suitably operate the cable system under the existing licenses and must be upheld.) Tj 399.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -363.48 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg (1. ) Tj 12 0 TD (AT&T's legal ability) Tj ET 134.4 500.28 98.76 0.6 re f BT 233.16 502.2 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj 3 0 TD ( ) Tj -113.76 -27.6 TD 0 0 1 rg (a. ) Tj 14.28 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (The Issuing ) Tj 58.68 0 TD (Authorities retain the power provided by federal legislation to ) Tj -72.96 -13.8 TD (promote competition) Tj 99.6 0 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -99.6 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (The inability or unwillingness of AT&T to provide open access to its system is ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (contrary to the competition endorsed by Congress in this field. ) Tj 304.92 0 TD (See) Tj ET 391.32 403.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 408.6 405.6 TD ( 47 U.S.C. \247533. ) Tj 86.4 0 TD (There ) Tj -408.6 -27.6 TD (exists a legitimate and reasonable concern regarding the adverse effect on competition that ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (this transfer would promote, a concern that Congress expressly recognized as within the ) Tj T* (purview of an Issuing Authority's consideration in a transfer proceedi) Tj 331.68 0 TD (ng. ) Tj 17.88 0 TD (See) Tj ET 435.96 320.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 453.24 322.8 TD ( 47 U.S.C. ) Tj -366.84 -27.6 TD (\247533\(d\)\(2\).) Tj 54.84 0 TD ( ) Tj -18.84 -27.6 TD (Congress not only recognized the importance of competition within the industry but ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (explicitly left it to the state or local issuing authority to ensure that this competition ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (existed. ) Tj 43.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 129.48 210.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 146.76 212.4 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 149.76 210.48 12.36 0.6 re f BT 162.12 212.4 TD (; ) Tj 6.36 0 TD (AT&T Corp. v. Portland) Tj ET 168.48 210.48 118.2 0.6 re f BT 286.68 212.4 TD (, 43 F. Sup) Tj 52.32 0 TD (p.2d 1146, 1152 \(D.Or. 1999\).) Tj 146.16 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (14) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -406.92 -27.6 TD (Along these same lines, Congress also expressly granted the state or local authority the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (power to act for the purpose of consumer protection in the sphere of cable services. ) Tj 404.64 0 TD (See) Tj ET 491.04 155.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 508.32 157.2 TD ( 47 ) Tj -421.92 -27.6 TD (U.S.C. \247552\(c\). ) Tj 78.6 0 TD ( ) Tj -78.6 -43.08 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 89.04 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 86.52 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (14) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 95.4 72.96 14.4 0.48 re f BT 109.8 74.52 TD -0.0348 Tc 0.0648 Tw ( Argument ) Tj 45 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0182 Tc 0 Tw (supra) Tj 22.8 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0738 Tc -0.0438 Tw ( \247B\(1\).) Tj 28.56 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 156 0 obj 3916 endobj 154 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 148 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 155 0 R >> endobj 158 0 obj << /Length 159 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (43) Tj -177.6 653.04 TD (The Massachusetts Legisla) Tj 128.76 0 TD (ture chose not to assume the power to control ) Tj -164.76 -27.6 TD (competition at the state level but instead limited the Division's power to deferential review ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (of an issuing authority's transfer decision. ) Tj 205.32 0 TD (See) Tj ET 291.72 652.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 309 654 TD ( M.G.L. c. 166A, \2477. This allocation of ) Tj -222.6 -27.6 TD (power placed the right and) Tj 127.56 0 TD ( responsibility of maintaining competition squarely upon the ) Tj -127.56 -27.6 TD (shoulders of the Issuing Authorities and any review by the Division must be limited to ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (consideration of whether the Issuing Authorities were arbitrary or unreasonable. ) Tj 386.04 0 TD (See) Tj ET 472.44 569.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 489.72 571.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Id) Tj ET 492.72 569.28 9.72 0.6 re f BT 502.44 571.2 TD (.) Tj 3 0 TD ( ) Tj -383.04 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0 0 1 rg (b. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (AT&T's failure) Tj 72 0 TD ( to provide open access adversely affects competition and ) Tj -87 -13.8 TD (implicates restraint of trade provisions) Tj 187.44 0 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj -187.44 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T's failure to provide open access clearly limits competition and consumer ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (choice in the provision of cable services. In addition, the Issuing Au) Tj 328.92 0 TD (thorities are ) Tj -328.92 -27.6 TD (reasonably concerned that this refusal implicates serious federal and state restraint of trade ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (policies. ) Tj 49.32 0 TD (See) Tj ET 135.72 403.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 153 405.6 TD ( 15 U.S.C. \247\2471) Tj 71.4 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (7; M.G.L. c. 93 \2474. ) Tj 98.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -204 -27.6 TD (AT&T has itself denounced the anti) Tj 171.96 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive effects of a closed system and ) Tj -211.92 -27.6 TD (trumpeted the nee) Tj 85.8 0 TD (d for regulation to ensure equal access for ISPs in a different venue. ) Tj 330.48 0 TD (See) Tj ET 502.68 348.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 519.96 350.4 TD ( ) Tj -433.56 -27.6 TD (AT&T Canada's Comments to CRTC attached as Exhibit C. In its submission to the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (CRTC, AT&T noted the ability of companies to exercise significant market power through ) Tj T* (the control w) Tj 63.24 0 TD (hich they assert over "bottleneck broadband" \(their words\) access facilities. ) Tj -63.24 -27.6 TD (See) Tj ET 86.4 238.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 103.68 240 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 106.68 238.08 12.36 0.6 re f BT 119.04 240 TD ( at i. This anti) Tj 69.36 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive behavior was forecasted by AT&T to manifest in a ) Tj -105.96 -27.6 TD (number of ways, including "discriminatory behaviour in relation to the terms and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (condition) Tj 45.36 0 TD (s for broadcast access services and a refusal to unbundle bottleneck components, ) Tj -45.36 -27.6 TD (thus disadvantaging service providers with whom the access provider competes in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (downstream markets." ) Tj 113.28 0 TD (Id.) Tj ET 199.68 127.68 12.72 0.6 re f BT 212.4 129.6 TD ( AT&T requested that the Canadian government mandate open ) Tj -126 -27.6 TD (access until) Tj 55.56 0 TD ( "safeguards to ensure that broadband access services continue to remain ) Tj ET endstream endobj 159 0 obj 3545 endobj 157 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 148 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 158 0 R >> endobj 161 0 obj << /Length 162 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (44) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (available from the cable companies on a non) Tj 213.84 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (discriminatory and unbundled basis." ) Tj 184.32 0 TD (See) Tj ET 488.52 707.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 505.8 709.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 508.8 707.28 12.36 0.6 re f BT 521.16 709.2 TD ( ) Tj -434.76 -27.6 TD (at ii. It is difficult for AT&T to now disclaim the anti) Tj 257.88 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive effects of it operating) Tj 162.24 0 TD ( a ) Tj -424.08 -27.6 TD (closed system in Massachusetts.) Tj 154.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -118.2 -27.6 TD (Furthermore, it is a violation of both federal and state law to restrain trade or ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (commerce by creation of a "tying" or "bundling" arrangement. ) Tj 303.84 0 TD (See) Tj ET 390.24 596.88 17.28 0.6 re f BT 407.52 598.8 TD ( 15 U.S.C. \2471, M.G.L. ) Tj -321.12 -27.6 TD (c. 93 \2474. Such an impermissible arrangement has fou) Tj 257.16 0 TD (r elements: \(1\) two distinct and ) Tj -257.16 -27.6 TD (separate products; \(2\) a refusal to sell the tying product separate from the tied product; \(3\) ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the seller's possession of sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to ) Tj T* (appreciably restrain free competition ) Tj 179.16 0 TD (in the market for the tied product, and for the ) Tj -179.16 -27.6 TD (purposes of the Sherman Act; and \(4\) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the tied product affected by the tying arrangement. ) Tj 247.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 334.2 431.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 351.48 433.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image ) Tj ET 354.48 431.28 140.76 0.6 re f BT 86.4 405.6 TD (Technical Servs., Inc.) Tj ET 86.4 403.68 103.8 0.6 re f BT 190.2 405.6 TD (, 504 U.S. 4) Tj 57.36 0 TD (51, 461 \(1992\); ) Tj 77.28 0 TD (Parikh v. Franklin Medical Center) Tj ET 324.84 403.68 164.04 0.6 re f BT 488.88 405.6 TD (, 940 ) Tj -402.48 -27.6 TD (F.Supp. 395 \(D. Mass. 1996\). ) Tj 145.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -109.2 -27.6 TD (Here, AT&T will continue an arrangement whereby a Massachusetts consumer ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (cannot receive connection to the internet through AT&T's broadband cable system without ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (paying for) Tj 49.08 0 TD ( the Road Runner ISP service that MediaOne controls as a separate, affiliated ) Tj -49.08 -27.6 TD (company. Thus, a consumer desiring the full content and services of another ISP will be ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (forced to pay twice, once for the mandated Road Runner ISP and again for the desired ISP.) Tj 435.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -435.48 -27.6 TD (The obvious results of such bundling include higher costs, decreased consumer choice and ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (stifled innovation.) Tj 87.36 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (15) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( It is clear that the refusal of AT&T to provide open access to other ) Tj -95.52 -27.6 TD (ISPs implicates the necessary elements of this anti) Tj 240.84 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (trust provision.) Tj 72.72 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (16) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -331.68 -36.24 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 123.48 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 120.96 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (15) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.002 Tc 0.028 Tw ( This bundling has been compa) Tj 124.2 0 TD 0.0141 Tc 0.0159 Tw (red to Microsoft's operating system/Internet browser arrangement currently ) Tj -130.68 -11.52 TD 0.0118 Tc 0.0182 Tw (being prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice. ) Tj 212.64 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 299.04 95.88 14.4 0.48 re f BT 313.44 97.44 TD 0.029 Tc 0.001 Tw ( Maher, ) Tj 33.6 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0247 Tc 0.0053 Tw (Cable Internet Bundling: Local Leadership ) Tj -260.64 -11.4 TD 0.0344 Tc -0.0044 Tw (in Deployment High Speed Access) Tj 137.4 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.05 Tc -0.02 Tw (, 52 ) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0.042 Tc 0 Tw (F) Tj 5.52 0 TD /F0 8.04 Tf -0.0066 Tc (ED) Tj 10.68 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf -0.0216 Tc 0.0516 Tw (. C) Tj 11.64 0 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.02 Tc 0 Tw (OMM) Tj 20.16 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0379 Tc -0.0079 Tw (. L.J.) Tj 20.04 0 TD 0.0557 Tc -0.0257 Tw ( 211, 223) Tj 37.8 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.049 Tc -0.019 Tw (25 \(1999\)\(atta) Tj 57.24 0 TD 0.0046 Tc 0.0254 Tw (ched as Exhibit Q\); ExParte ) Tj -321.36 -11.52 TD 0.0094 Tc 0.0206 Tw (Submission of Professor Mark A. Lemley and Professor Lawrence Lessig, FCC CS Docket No. 99) Tj 392.76 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.06 Tc -0.03 Tw (251 ) Tj ET endstream endobj 162 0 obj 4776 endobj 160 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 148 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 161 0 R >> endobj 164 0 obj << /Length 165 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (45) Tj -177.6 653.04 TD (Th) Tj 13.32 0 TD (ere is recent precedent to support these denials and conditional approvals upon ) Tj -49.32 -27.6 TD (this basis. In ) Tj 66.12 0 TD (Portland) Tj ET 152.52 679.68 40.68 0.6 re f BT 193.2 681.6 TD (, AT&T argued that the city's review of the transfer application was ) Tj -106.8 -27.6 TD (limited to consideration the transferee's technical, legal and financial qualificat) Tj 377.16 0 TD (ions. ) Tj 29.04 0 TD (See) Tj ET 492.6 652.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 509.88 654 TD ( ) Tj -423.48 -27.6 TD (43 F.Supp.2d at 1155. The ) Tj 133.56 0 TD (Portland) Tj ET 219.96 624.48 40.68 0.6 re f BT 260.64 626.4 TD ( court found that mandatory access requirements were ) Tj -174.24 -27.6 TD (appropriately related to the transferee's legal qualifications to assume control of the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (licenses so as to fall within the city's contractual rights. ) Tj 270 0 TD (See) Tj ET 356.4 569.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 373.68 571.2 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (id.) Tj ET 376.68 569.28 12.36 0.6 re f BT 389.04 571.2 TD ( ) Tj -266.64 -27.6 TD (The anti) Tj 39.6 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (competitive results impair AT&T's fundamental legal qualifications to ) Tj -79.56 -27.6 TD (perform under the contract and are appropriate considerations by the Issuing Authorities in ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (the license transfer decision. They certainly are not arbitrary or unreasonable fac) Tj 387.36 0 TD (tors on ) Tj -387.36 -27.6 TD (which to base a transfer application determination. Therefore, the decisions of the Issuing ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Authorities must be upheld. ) Tj 139.32 0 TD (See) Tj ET 225.72 431.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 243 433.2 TD ( M.G.L. c. 166A, \2477; ) Tj 103.68 0 TD (Portland) Tj ET 346.68 431.28 40.68 0.6 re f BT 387.36 433.2 TD (, 43 F.Supp.2d at 1155.) Tj 111.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -376.92 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD 0 0 1 rg (2. ) Tj 12 0 TD (AT&T does not maintain or is unwilling to utilize the technical ex) Tj 317.52 0 TD (pertise to ) Tj ET 134.4 389.88 361.8 0.6 re f BT 136.08 378 TD (perform this contract in a lawful manner) Tj ET 136.08 376.08 193.56 0.6 re f BT 329.64 378 TD (.) Tj 3 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj -246.24 -13.92 TD ( ) Tj 0 -20.52 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The technology to operate the cable systems in a lawful manner is available to ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (AT&T. Connection of multiple ISPs to an existing cable carrier's facility has been ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (demonstrated on a smaller scale ) Tj 156 0 TD (and this technology is essentially in existence for much ) Tj -156 -27.6 TD (larger operations. One carrier successfully demonstrated the connection of multiple ISPs ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (in Clearwater, Florida. ) Tj 114.36 0 TD (See) Tj ET 200.76 231.24 17.28 0.6 re f BT 218.04 233.16 TD ( Burlington Regional Hearing at 121, 145. In a separate ) Tj -131.64 -27.6 TD (proceeding, the Canadian) Tj 121.92 0 TD ( Radio) Tj 31.68 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (television and Telecommunications Commission \(CRTC\) ) Tj -157.56 -50.04 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 158.04 439.2 0.6 re f BT 525.6 155.52 TD ( ) Tj -439.2 -12 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0037 Tc 0.0263 Tw (\(attached as Exhibit R\). Whereas Microsoft made it difficult to load a competing browser, the bundling at ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD 0.0189 Tc 0.0111 Tw (issue by AT&T effectively ) Tj 109.2 0 TD 0.0054 Tc 0.0246 Tw (disables relevant competition by permitting only a fraction of competitor's ) Tj -109.2 -11.52 TD 0.0083 Tc 0.0217 Tw (services to be utilized or, in the alternative, economically irrational by requiring the consumer to pay twice ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD 0.0127 Tc 0.0173 Tw (for the comparable services of a non) Tj 145.08 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0237 Tc 0.0063 Tw (affiliated ISP.) Tj 55.44 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj -203.76 -6.96 TD /F0 6.48 Tf 0 Tw (16) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf -0.0085 Tc 0.0385 Tw ( At least one s) Tj 56.4 0 TD -0.0025 Tc 0.0325 Tw (uit has been filed in federal court alleging violation of the Sherman Act as a result of this ) Tj -62.88 -11.4 TD -0.0254 Tc 0.0554 Tw (unlawful tying scheme. ) Tj 97.32 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 183.72 84.48 14.4 0.48 re f BT 198.12 86.04 TD 0.0305 Tc -0 Tw ( GTE Internetworking, Inc. v. Tele) Tj 141.6 0 TD -0.0468 Tc 0 Tw (-) Tj 3.24 0 TD 0.0084 Tc 0.0216 Tw (Communications, Inc. \(W.D. Penn. 1999\) ) Tj -256.56 -11.52 TD 0.0049 Tc 0.0251 Tw (\(attached as Exhibit S\).) Tj 93.12 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 165 0 obj 4874 endobj 163 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 148 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 164 0 R >> endobj 168 0 obj << /Length 169 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (46) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (noted that a similar demonstration was being conducted within its jurisdiction. ) Tj 382.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 468.48 707.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 485.76 709.2 TD ( CRTC ) Tj -399.36 -27.6 TD (99) Tj 12 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (11 attached as Exhibit T. ) Tj 128.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -144.6 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (At the regional hearings, AT&T acknowledged these successful multiple ISP ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (connections but asserted that multiple connections on a larger scale would require ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ("substantial operational effort," including investment in new functionality and an upgrade ) Tj T* (of "a bunch of our existing hardware and software." ) Tj 253.92 0 TD (See) Tj ET 340.32 569.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 357.6 571.2 TD ( Burlington Hearing Transc) Tj 131.76 0 TD (ript at ) Tj -402.96 -27.6 TD (122. The aforementioned CRTC decision belies this grim outlook by AT&T. There, the ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Canadian Cable Television Association, a group of cable providers currently offering high ) Tj T* (speed retail Internet services of comparable magnitude as MediaOne, annou) Tj 363.36 0 TD (nced that it ) Tj -363.36 -27.6 TD (expects that cable companies will be in a position to implement commercial access service ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (as early as mid) Tj 71.16 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (2000. ) Tj 33 0 TD (See) Tj ET 194.52 431.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 211.8 433.2 TD ( CRTC 99) Tj 49.44 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (11. Most contradictory, a Tacoma tele) Tj 185.28 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -368.04 -27.6 TD (communication company just announced that it will provide open access to multi) Tj 389.04 0 TD (ple ISPs ) Tj -389.04 -27.6 TD (through its cable system by the end of the year, as the company's network has "worked ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (flawlessly" in its tests using three separate ISPs. ) Tj 235.92 0 TD (See) Tj ET 322.32 348.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 339.6 350.4 TD ( Press Release \(December 1, 1999\) ) Tj -253.2 -27.6 TD (attached as Exhibit U.) Tj 105.96 0 TD ( ) Tj -105.96 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (A representative of GTE, the carrier that perfo) Tj 221.88 0 TD (rmed the Florida demonstration, ) Tj -257.88 -27.6 TD (likewise dispelled AT&T's claim that open access on a large scale is not readily feasible ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (but instead only required reasonable effort and commitment. ) Tj 295.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 382.2 238.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 399.48 240 TD ( Burlington Regional ) Tj -313.08 -27.6 TD (Hearing at 145; ) Tj 77.4 0 TD (see) Tj ET 163.8 210.48 15.24 0.6 re f BT 179.04 212.4 TD ( ) Tj 3 0 TD (also) Tj ET 182.04 210.48 19.32 0.6 re f BT 201.36 212.4 TD ( Weymouth Regional Hearin) Tj 137.76 0 TD (g at 88 \(MIT Professor Hausman ) Tj -252.72 -27.6 TD (noted that required open access in Canada and Australia did not deter relevant providers ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (from the necessary investment and upgrade\).) Tj 214.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -214.32 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Finally, AT&T has fallen upon its own sword. Its recent agreement with the FCC ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (confirms th) Tj 54.96 0 TD (e fact that it either presently maintains the technology to provide for open ) Tj ET endstream endobj 169 0 obj 3347 endobj 166 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 167 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 168 0 R >> endobj 171 0 obj << /Length 172 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (47) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (access or is in a position to apply this technology shortly. The President of the Media ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Access Project, in his letter explaining why he could not sign off on AT&T's open access ) Tj T* (d) Tj 6 0 TD (eclaration, stated:) Tj 84.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -18.48 -27.6 TD (Even as technologists at the highest levels of AT&T and Excite@Home ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (were representing to me that there is no technological impediment to ) Tj T* (providing citizens with access to multiple ISP's, their lobbyists have ) Tj T* (continued to argue the contr) Tj 134.28 0 TD (ary position before numerous state and local ) Tj -134.28 -13.8 TD (legislative and regulatory bodies. Indeed a significant factor in my decision ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (to withdraw from the talks you asked me to attend was the claim ) Tj 5.28 Tc -5.28 Tw (\205 ) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw (by ) Tj T* (Excite@Home's General Counsel that "The technology simply does ) Tj 327.48 0 TD (not yet ) Tj -327.48 -13.8 TD (exist to allow multiple ISPs to share a coaxial cable on a commercial basis.") Tj 365.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -365.04 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (See) Tj ET 122.4 500.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 139.68 502.2 TD ( Schwartzmann correspondence at composite Exhibit J. ) Tj 271.56 0 TD ( ) Tj -324.84 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The statements made by AT&T throughout the regional hearings and Cambridge ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (hearing to the effect that such ap) Tj 156.12 0 TD (plication would not be economically or technologically ) Tj -156.12 -27.6 TD (feasible for a considerable amount of time is characteristic of the general insincerity with ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (which AT&T has addressed the legitimate concerns that the Issuing Authorities have ) Tj T* (raised throughout these t) Tj 118.08 0 TD (ransfer proceedings.) Tj 96.84 0 TD ( ) Tj -214.92 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (It is clear that AT&T, by the intransigence it continues to display on this matter, is ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (unwilling to effect the technical capacity necessary to operate and update the cable system ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (as required under applicable law, and the existing lice) Tj 257.76 0 TD (nses. The Issuing Authorities did, ) Tj -257.76 -27.6 TD (and indeed must, account for this refusal in their review of the transfer application. The ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (failure of the transferee to utilize the available technical expertise to operate the cable ) Tj T* (systems in a lawful manner is suffic) Tj 172.08 0 TD (ient grounds for denying a license transfer and the ) Tj -172.08 -27.6 TD (Issuing Authorities' decisions must be upheld on these grounds.) Tj 304.44 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 172 0 obj 2845 endobj 170 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 167 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 171 0 R >> endobj 174 0 obj << /Length 175 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (48) Tj -177.6 653.04 TD 0 0 1 rg (3. ) Tj 12 0 TD (Cambridge's denial based upon the additional consideration of the transferee's ) Tj ET 134.4 707.28 372.96 0.6 re f BT 135.96 695.4 TD (lack of management experience and failure to adhere to th) Tj 278.16 0 TD (e existing license is ) Tj ET 135.96 693.48 371.76 0.6 re f BT 135.96 681.6 TD (appropriate grounds for denying AT&T's transfer request) Tj ET 135.96 679.68 273.36 0.6 re f BT 409.32 681.6 TD (.) Tj 3 0 TD 0 0 0 rg ( ) Tj 6 0 TD ( ) Tj -295.92 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (The Cambridge Denial of AT&T's transfer request was appropriately based upon a ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (number of additional factors. AT&T's attempt to mischaracterize the Cambridge ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (proceedin) Tj 47.16 0 TD (gs and ultimate basis for its decision must be addressed. First and foremost, ) Tj -47.16 -27.6 TD (Appellants assert that they "presented evidence satisfying the four relevant criteria set forth ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (in 207 CMR \2474.00." ) Tj 103.92 0 TD (See) Tj ET 190.32 541.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 207.6 543.6 TD ( Appellants' Memorandum at 10. Despite this portrayal by ) Tj -121.2 -27.6 TD (Appellants, the determination of whether the Appellants satisfied the relevant criteria is a ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (decision left by law to Cambridge. 207 CMR 4.04. As demonstrated by the City's denial ) Tj T* (of its transfer request, Appellants soundly failed to meet these requiremen) Tj 354 0 TD (ts. ) Tj 20.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -374.04 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T cannot refute Cambridge's ability to inquire into the transferee's ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (management experience in determining whether a to grant a transfer request. ) Tj 370.08 0 TD (See) Tj ET 456.48 403.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 473.76 405.6 TD ( 207 CMR ) Tj -387.36 -27.6 TD (4.04. Here, AT&T has admitted that it, as transferee, does not possess the requisite ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (ex) Tj 11.4 0 TD (perience to operate a cable system in Massachusetts. Throughout the public hearing, ) Tj -11.4 -27.6 TD (AT&T referenced the management of MediaOne as providing the necessary leadership for ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (this undertaking. ) Tj 86.52 0 TD (See) Tj ET 172.92 293.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 190.2 295.2 TD ( Cambridge Hearing attached as Exhibit D. In its subsequent ) Tj -103.8 -27.6 TD (res) Tj 13.92 0 TD (ponse to the Cambridge Request for Information, AT&T was again forced to admit this ) Tj -13.92 -27.6 TD (fact.) Tj 20.88 0 TD ( ) Tj 51.12 -27.6 TD (Follow) Tj 33.96 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (up Question 1:) Tj 70.68 0 TD ( ) Tj -108.6 -13.8 TD (Q. ) Tj 14.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (Has AT&T ever managed any cable systems in Massachusetts? If so, ) Tj 3.36 -13.8 TD (which systems and during what period of time?) Tj 227.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -245.04 -13.8 TD /F0 12 Tf (A. No.) Tj 32.28 0 TD ( ) Tj -32.28 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -36 -13.8 TD (See) Tj ET 122.4 141.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 139.68 143.4 TD ( MediaOne/AT&T Res) Tj 110.4 0 TD (ponse to the Cambridge Request for Information ) Tj -127.68 -13.8 TD (\(September 10, 1999\) attached as composite Exhibit E.) Tj 264.12 0 TD ( ) Tj -228.12 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 175 0 obj 3355 endobj 173 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 167 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 174 0 R >> endobj 177 0 obj << /Length 178 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (49) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (In light of this inexperience in the operation of cable systems, AT&T purports to ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (rely upon its own experience in communications generally, the "embedded) Tj 357.48 0 TD ( expertise" of ) Tj -357.48 -27.6 TD (the TCI management, and the MediaOne management structure that would be retained ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (following the merger. ) Tj 109.92 0 TD (See) Tj ET 196.32 624.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 213.6 626.4 TD ( Appellants Memorandum at 23. Only the first is relevant to a ) Tj -127.2 -27.6 TD (transfer decision in Massachusetts, however. ) Tj 220.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -220.2 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Recent history justifie) Tj 105.6 0 TD (s Cambridge's concern. In 1996, Magistrate Beard served the ) Tj -141.6 -27.6 TD (same role in US West's takeover and transfer of cable licenses held by Continental. As ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (here, Magistrate Beard found the requisite management experience in US West's ) Tj T* (maintenance of the Continenta) Tj 146.76 0 TD (l personnel. ) Tj 61.92 0 TD (See) Tj ET 295.08 486.48 17.28 0.6 re f BT 312.36 488.4 TD ( Summary of Proceedings and Magistrate's ) Tj -225.96 -27.6 TD (Report \(July 16, 1996\) at 6) Tj 129 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (7 attached as Exhibit V. Soon thereafter, however, the large ) Tj -132.96 -27.6 TD (majority of Continental management was either transferred to another region or released.) Tj 425.76 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (17) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -433.92 -27.6 TD (This highlights t) Tj 78.6 0 TD (he fact that in such corporate mergers today, plans for retaining the ) Tj -78.6 -27.6 TD (management of the purchased company are often temporary, are frequently a necessary ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (posturing for approval, and are not a reliable basis for judging management experience in ) Tj T* (this context) Tj 55.8 0 TD (. Therefore, under the most limited interpretation of an Issuing Authorities' ) Tj -55.8 -27.6 TD (discretion pursuant to Division's regulation, Cambridge's denial of the transfer due to ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (AT&T's lack of management experience is a legitimate concern, is certainly not arbitrary ) Tj T* (or unreasonable and must be upheld.) Tj 175.68 0 TD ( ) Tj -175.68 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Furthermore, AT&T's reliance upon MediaOne's management only strengthens ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (Cambridge's grounds for denial.) Tj 153.6 5.52 TD /F0 8.04 Tf 0.06 Tc (18) Tj 8.16 -5.52 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc ( AT&T misinterprets the City's demand for license ) Tj -161.76 -52.32 TD ( ) Tj 90 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 86.4 135 144 0.6 re f BT 230.4 132.48 TD ( ) Tj -144 -7.44 TD /F0 6.48 Tf (17) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD 0.0192 Tc 0 Tw (See) Tj ET 95.4 118.92 14.4 0.48 re f BT 109.8 120.48 TD 0.0333 Tc -0.0033 Tw ( Mark Landler, ) Tj 62.64 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0435 Tc -0.0135 Tw (Head of U.S. W) Tj 62.52 0 TD 0.0103 Tc 0.0197 Tw (est's Cable Unit Resigns Abruptly) Tj 134.88 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc 0 Tw (, ) Tj 5.04 0 TD 0.0564 Tc -0.0264 Tw (N.Y. T) Tj 28.2 0 TD /F0 8.04 Tf -0.0237 Tc 0 Tw (IMES) Tj 18.96 0 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.0268 Tc 0.0032 Tw (, Aug. 7, 1997, at D6.) Tj 86.76 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj -422.4 -6.96 TD /F0 6.48 Tf 0 Tw (18) Tj 6.48 -4.56 TD /F0 9.96 Tf 0.001 Tc 0.029 Tw ( Somerville likewise based its denial of the transfer request in part upon AT&T's lack of cable management ) Tj -6.48 -11.52 TD 0.0024 Tc 0.0276 Tw (experience in Massachusetts, MediaOne's ongoing failure to perform sufficiently ) Tj 324.24 0 TD -0.0072 Tc 0.0372 Tw (under the existing license, ) Tj -324.24 -11.4 TD 0.009 Tc 0.021 Tw (and MediaOne's representations that Somerville would not receive telephony and high speed Internet ) Tj 0 -11.52 TD 0.0018 Tc 0.0282 Tw (services in the near future.) Tj 105.24 0 TD 0 Tc 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 178 0 obj 4140 endobj 176 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 167 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 177 0 R >> endobj 180 0 obj << /Length 181 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (50) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD (compliance as an attempt to amend the Agreement. On the contra) Tj 316.56 0 TD (ry the Agreement as ) Tj -316.56 -27.6 TD (written provides:) Tj 81.6 0 TD ( ) Tj -9.6 -27.6 TD (For the purposes of determining whether it shall consent to such a change in ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (control and ownership, ) Tj 113.16 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (the City may inquire into ) Tj 2.64 Tc -2.64 Tw (\205 ) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw (all matters relative to ) Tj -113.16 -13.8 TD (whether such Person is likely to adhere to the terms and condition) Tj 318.12 0 TD (s of the ) Tj -318.12 -13.8 TD (Final License) Tj 2.64 Tc (\205) Tj 76.32 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj -76.32 -13.8 TD /F0 12 Tf (Cambridge License, \2472.2\(d\) \(emphasis supplied\) \(Exhibit N\).) Tj 294.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -294.36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD (Along these same lines,) Tj 113.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -113.76 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 72 -13.8 TD (The consent of the Issuing Authority to a Transfer of the Final License ) Tj 340.68 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (shall ) Tj -340.68 -13.8 TD (not be given if it appears from the application or from subsequent ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD (i) Tj 3.36 0 TD (nvestigation that ) Tj 2.64 Tc -2.64 Tw (\205 ) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw (\(2\)the License will not be adhered to) Tj 273.36 0 TD /F0 12 Tf 5.28 Tc (\205) Tj 12 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj -288.72 -13.8 TD (Cambridge License, \2472.2\(h\) \(emphasis supplied\) \(Exhibit N\).) Tj 294.36 0 TD ( ) Tj -294.36 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj -72 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Thus, Cambridge expressly reserved the right to deny a transfer request when it ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (appeared that the License would not be adhered to by th) Tj 267.48 0 TD (e transferee. The long list of ) Tj -267.48 -27.6 TD (compliance issues presented to AT&T by the City establishes the fact that the license was ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (not being adhered to by MediaOne and its current management. Instead of demonstrating ) Tj T* (the change needed, AT&T's attempts to rely upon) Tj 237.72 0 TD ( this same management to demonstrate ) Tj -237.72 -27.6 TD (its ability undermines its argument that it maintains the management experience. In this ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (case, the same wrong twice applied, i.e. MediaOne management, does not make a right.) Tj 419.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -419.76 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (AT&T's attempt to dismiss this basis as sup) Tj 209.76 0 TD (erficial is also inconsistent with the ) Tj -245.76 -27.6 TD (history of this matter. Compliance with the existing license was of paramount importance ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (throughout. One week after the hearing, counsel for Cambridge sent a follow) Tj 374.52 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (up set of ) Tj -378.48 -27.6 TD (questions that he perceived as not full) Tj 181.08 0 TD (y addressed at the hearing. ) Tj 132.84 0 TD (See) Tj ET 400.32 196.68 17.28 0.6 re f BT 417.6 198.6 TD ( August 26, 1999 ) Tj -331.2 -27.6 TD (correspondence attached as composite Exhibit E. In the correspondence, Cambridge listed ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (a total of fifty) Tj 65.88 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (four \(54\) areas in which MediaOne management had failed to comply with ) Tj -69.84 -27.6 TD (the ) Tj 17.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf (existing) Tj 37.32 0 TD /F0 12 Tf ( license. ) Tj 45.24 0 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 181 0 obj 3422 endobj 179 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 167 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 180 0 R >> endobj 183 0 obj << /Length 184 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (51) Tj -213.6 653.04 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (After) Tj 25.2 0 TD ( AT&T refused to respond to these issues, Cambridge again on November 2, ) Tj -61.2 -27.6 TD (wrote to MediaOne indicating nine sections of the license suffering from non) Tj 369.48 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (compliance ) Tj -373.44 -27.6 TD (and requesting assurance that these failures would be remedied. ) Tj 310.8 0 TD (See) Tj ET 397.2 652.08 17.28 0.6 re f BT 414.48 654 TD ( November 2, 1999 ) Tj -328.08 -27.6 TD (correspon) Tj 47.16 0 TD (dence attached as composite Exhibit E. MediaOne, in its reply, confirmed that ) Tj -47.16 -27.6 TD (these remained outstanding problems and that they were working towards their resolution. ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (See) Tj ET 86.4 569.28 17.28 0.6 re f BT 103.68 571.2 TD ( November 10, 1999 correspondence included in composite Exhibit E. Thus, it is ) Tj -17.28 -27.6 TD (app) Tj 17.28 0 TD (arent that Cambridge's decision, in large part based upon uncertainty of the transferee's ) Tj -17.28 -27.6 TD (compliance to perform under the existing license, was certainly not unreasonable or ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (arbitrary and therefore must withstand review by the Division.) Tj 298.44 0 TD ( ) Tj -298.44 -27.84 TD /F1 12 Tf ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 184 0 obj 1427 endobj 182 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 167 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 183 0 R >> endobj 187 0 obj << /Length 188 0 R >> stream BT 86.4 745.2 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -684.84 TD /F0 7.56 Tf 0.03 Tw ( ) Tj 0 -8.64 TD ( ) Tj 0 -12.72 TD /F0 12 Tf 0 Tw ( ) Tj 213.6 17.16 TD (52) Tj -27 652.8 TD 0 0 1 rg /F1 12 Tf (C) Tj 8.64 0 TD /F1 9.48 Tf -0.0099 Tc (ONCLUSION) Tj 57.36 0 TD 0 0 0 rg /F1 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj -252.6 -13.56 TD /F0 12 Tf ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (For the foregoing reasons, the Division should deny MediaOne and AT&T's appeal ) Tj -36 -27.6 TD (of the Issuing Authorities' decisions concerning AT&T's Requests for Transfer. The ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (Appellants fall short of meeting their burden for summary disposition. In addition, the ) Tj T* (rec) Tj 14.52 0 TD (ord establishes that consideration of open access by the Issuing Authorities in this ) Tj -14.52 -27.6 TD (decision is appropriate. Accordingly, the Division regulations must be interpreted to allow ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD (for this consideration of open access or the regulations must fall. ) Tj 315.72 0 TD ( ) Tj -279.72 -27.6 TD (Hearings) Tj 43.08 0 TD ( and deliberations consistent with this conclusion are necessary and ) Tj -79.08 -27.6 TD (requested.) Tj 48.84 0 TD ( ) Tj -48.84 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Respectfully submitted,) Tj 113.64 0 TD ( ) Tj -329.64 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (City of Cambridge,) Tj 92.52 0 TD ( ) Tj -308.52 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Town of North Andover,) Tj 119.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -335.76 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (City of Quincy,) Tj 74.28 0 TD ( ) Tj -290.28 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (City of Somerville,) Tj 92.04 0 TD ( ) Tj -308.04 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (by their counsel,) Tj 79.2 0 TD ( ) Tj -295.2 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj ET 302.4 334.68 216 0.6 re f BT 518.4 336.6 TD ( ) Tj -432 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Charles R. Nesson) Tj 88.92 0 TD ( ) Tj -304.92 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (1575 Massachusetts Avenue) Tj 136.44 0 TD ( ) Tj -352.44 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Cambridge, MA 02138) Tj 111.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -327.48 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (\(617\) 495) Tj 46.92 0 TD (-) Tj 3.96 0 TD (4609) Tj 24 0 TD ( ) Tj -290.88 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (nesson@Law.harvard.edu) Tj 124.44 0 TD ( ) Tj -340.44 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj T* ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (____________________________________) Tj 216 0 TD ( ) Tj -432 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD (Kevin P. Conway) Tj 87.6 0 TD ( ) Tj -87.6 -13.8 TD (Conway, Crowley & Homer, P.C., ) Tj 167.76 0 TD ( ) Tj -167.76 -13.8 TD (332 Congress Street, Boston,) Tj 139.44 0 TD ( MA ) Tj 25.32 0 TD ( ) Tj -164.76 -13.8 TD (BBO# 097240.) Tj 72.48 0 TD ( ) Tj -288.48 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj 36 0 TD ( ) Tj -216 -13.8 TD (Dated: December ___, 1999) Tj 135 0 TD ( ) Tj -135 -13.8 TD ( ) Tj 0 -27.6 TD ( ) Tj ET endstream endobj 188 0 obj 4068 endobj 185 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 186 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 187 0 R >> endobj 6 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F0 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 330 400 500 500 830 770 170 330 330 500 560 250 330 250 280 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 280 280 560 560 560 460 920 720 660 670 720 610 550 720 720 310 400 720 590 890 720 720 560 720 670 560 610 720 720 950 720 720 600 340 260 340 470 500 320 440 500 440 500 440 330 490 500 280 280 500 280 780 500 500 500 500 330 390 280 500 500 720 510 470 450 480 180 480 540 780 560 780 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 780 560 780 780 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 780 560 560 250 330 500 500 500 500 180 500 350 760 280 460 560 330 760 500 400 550 300 300 320 580 450 250 290 300 310 460 750 750 750 450 720 720 720 720 720 720 860 670 610 610 610 610 310 310 310 310 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 560 720 720 720 720 720 720 560 500 440 440 440 440 440 440 670 440 440 440 440 440 280 280 280 280 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 550 500 500 500 500 500 470 490 470 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 7 0 R >> endobj 7 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -250 -216 1140 1040 ] /MissingWidth 340 /StemV 73 /StemH 73 /ItalicAngle 0 /CapHeight 891 /XHeight 446 /Ascent 891 /Descent -216 /Leading 149 /MaxWidth 950 /AvgWidth 401 >> endobj 8 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F1 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman,Bold /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 330 560 500 500 1010 830 280 330 330 500 570 250 330 250 280 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 330 330 570 570 570 500 930 720 670 720 720 670 600 770 780 390 500 770 670 940 720 780 600 780 720 560 670 720 720 1000 720 720 660 330 280 330 580 500 330 500 560 440 560 440 340 500 560 280 330 560 280 820 560 500 560 560 440 390 330 560 500 730 500 500 440 390 210 390 520 780 570 780 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 780 570 780 780 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 780 570 570 250 340 500 500 500 500 210 500 360 750 300 500 570 330 750 500 400 550 300 300 330 580 540 240 330 300 330 500 750 750 750 500 720 720 720 720 720 720 1000 720 670 670 670 670 390 390 390 390 720 720 780 780 780 780 780 570 780 720 720 720 720 720 610 560 500 500 500 500 500 500 720 440 440 440 440 440 280 280 280 280 500 560 500 500 500 500 500 550 500 560 560 560 560 500 560 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 9 0 R >> endobj 9 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman,Bold /Flags 16418 /FontBBox [ -250 -216 1212 1040 ] /MissingWidth 330 /StemV 136 /StemH 136 /ItalicAngle 0 /CapHeight 891 /XHeight 446 /Ascent 891 /Descent -216 /Leading 149 /MaxWidth 1010 /AvgWidth 427 >> endobj 40 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F2 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman,Italic /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 340 430 510 500 830 740 220 320 320 500 670 250 330 250 280 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 330 330 670 670 670 500 920 610 610 670 720 610 610 720 720 330 440 670 560 830 670 720 610 720 610 500 560 720 610 810 610 570 560 390 280 440 420 500 350 500 500 440 500 440 280 500 500 280 280 440 280 720 500 500 500 500 390 390 280 500 440 670 440 440 390 400 270 400 540 780 670 780 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 780 670 780 780 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 780 670 670 250 400 500 500 720 500 270 500 290 760 280 500 670 330 730 500 400 550 310 300 340 580 520 250 330 300 310 500 750 750 750 510 610 610 610 610 610 610 890 670 610 610 610 610 330 330 330 330 720 670 720 720 720 720 720 670 720 720 720 720 720 570 610 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 670 440 440 440 440 440 280 280 280 280 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 550 500 500 500 500 500 440 490 440 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 41 0 R >> endobj 41 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman,Italic /Flags 98 /FontBBox [ -250 -216 1104 1040 ] /MissingWidth 440 /StemV 73 /StemH 73 /ItalicAngle -11 /CapHeight 891 /XHeight 446 /Ascent 891 /Descent -216 /Leading 149 /MaxWidth 920 /AvgWidth 402 >> endobj 64 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F3 /BaseFont /Symbol /FirstChar 30 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 600 250 310 710 510 550 830 780 450 330 330 500 550 270 550 250 290 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 280 270 550 550 550 450 550 710 660 720 610 610 790 600 710 310 620 720 690 880 740 720 770 740 560 610 600 690 440 780 670 790 610 340 860 340 670 500 490 610 600 990 600 990 500 760 1040 600 690 550 770 790 600 600 600 770 600 600 720 490 550 550 600 550 410 250 600 790 1000 400 600 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 760 550 600 600 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 740 550 550 690 250 990 760 840 600 570 550 600 480 700 430 760 710 700 710 710 720 380 490 710 700 760 990 410 490 600 920 790 790 600 380 380 600 600 330 540 560 560 530 600 550 520 530 540 600 570 420 730 650 380 470 510 690 480 480 200 460 610 600 530 600 600 380 490 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 ] /FontDescriptor 65 0 R >> endobj 65 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Symbol /Flags 6 /FontBBox [ -250 -220 1248 1230 ] /MissingWidth 860 /StemV 109 /StemH 109 /ItalicAngle 0 /CapHeight 1005 /XHeight 503 /Ascent 1005 /Descent -220 /Leading 225 /MaxWidth 1040 /AvgWidth 600 >> endobj 73 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F4 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 390 560 500 500 820 780 280 330 330 500 570 250 330 250 280 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 330 330 570 570 570 500 830 670 670 670 720 670 670 720 780 390 500 670 610 890 720 720 610 720 670 560 610 720 650 890 670 620 610 330 280 330 570 500 330 500 500 440 500 440 330 500 560 280 280 500 280 790 560 500 500 500 390 390 280 560 440 670 500 440 390 350 220 350 570 780 570 780 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 780 570 780 780 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 570 780 570 570 250 390 500 500 720 500 220 500 330 750 270 500 610 330 740 500 400 550 300 310 330 580 500 250 330 300 300 500 750 750 760 500 670 670 670 670 670 670 940 670 670 670 670 670 390 390 390 390 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 570 720 720 720 720 720 620 610 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 720 440 440 440 440 440 280 280 280 280 500 560 500 500 500 500 500 550 500 560 560 560 560 440 490 440 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 74 0 R >> endobj 74 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic /Flags 16482 /FontBBox [ -250 -216 1128 1040 ] /MissingWidth 330 /StemV 131 /StemH 131 /ItalicAngle -11 /CapHeight 891 /XHeight 446 /Ascent 891 /Descent -216 /Leading 149 /MaxWidth 940 /AvgWidth 412 >> endobj 2 0 obj [ /PDF /Text ] endobj 5 0 obj << /Kids [4 0 R 12 0 R 15 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 189 0 R >> endobj 28 0 obj << /Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 42 0 R 45 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 189 0 R >> endobj 49 0 obj << /Kids [48 0 R 52 0 R 55 0 R 58 0 R 61 0 R 66 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 189 0 R >> endobj 70 0 obj << /Kids [69 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R 84 0 R 87 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 189 0 R >> endobj 91 0 obj << /Kids [90 0 R 94 0 R 97 0 R 100 0 R 103 0 R 106 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 189 0 R >> endobj 110 0 obj << /Kids [109 0 R 113 0 R 116 0 R 119 0 R 122 0 R 125 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 189 0 R >> endobj 129 0 obj << /Kids [128 0 R 132 0 R 135 0 R 138 0 R 141 0 R 144 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 190 0 R >> endobj 148 0 obj << /Kids [147 0 R 151 0 R 154 0 R 157 0 R 160 0 R 163 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 190 0 R >> endobj 167 0 obj << /Kids [166 0 R 170 0 R 173 0 R 176 0 R 179 0 R 182 0 R ] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 190 0 R >> endobj 186 0 obj << /Kids [185 0 R ] /Count 1 /Type /Pages /Parent 190 0 R >> endobj 189 0 obj << /Kids [5 0 R 28 0 R 49 0 R 70 0 R 91 0 R 110 0 R ] /Count 36 /Type /Pages /Parent 191 0 R >> endobj 190 0 obj << /Kids [129 0 R 148 0 R 167 0 R 186 0 R ] /Count 19 /Type /Pages /Parent 191 0 R >> endobj 191 0 obj << /Kids [189 0 R 190 0 R ] /Count 55 /Type /Pages /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] >> endobj 1 0 obj << /Creator () /CreationDate (D:19991213180646) /Title (121399_Opposition_to_Summary_De) /Author (donna) /Producer (Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT) /Keywords () /Subject () >> endobj 3 0 obj << /Pages 191 0 R /Type /Catalog >> endobj xref 0 192 0000000000 65535 f 0000217472 00000 n 0000216022 00000 n 0000217670 00000 n 0000003278 00000 n 0000216053 00000 n 0000209246 00000 n 0000210332 00000 n 0000210592 00000 n 0000211686 00000 n 0000000019 00000 n 0000003257 00000 n 0000011650 00000 n 0000003408 00000 n 0000011629 00000 n 0000016731 00000 n 0000011781 00000 n 0000016710 00000 n 0000019489 00000 n 0000016862 00000 n 0000019468 00000 n 0000022913 00000 n 0000019620 00000 n 0000022892 00000 n 0000025940 00000 n 0000023033 00000 n 0000025919 00000 n 0000030023 00000 n 0000216162 00000 n 0000026060 00000 n 0000030002 00000 n 0000032851 00000 n 0000030144 00000 n 0000032830 00000 n 0000036617 00000 n 0000032972 00000 n 0000036596 00000 n 0000040712 00000 n 0000036749 00000 n 0000040691 00000 n 0000211957 00000 n 0000213052 00000 n 0000045126 00000 n 0000040845 00000 n 0000045105 00000 n 0000049963 00000 n 0000045270 00000 n 0000049942 00000 n 0000053719 00000 n 0000216273 00000 n 0000050096 00000 n 0000053698 00000 n 0000056977 00000 n 0000053863 00000 n 0000056956 00000 n 0000060142 00000 n 0000057109 00000 n 0000060121 00000 n 0000063957 00000 n 0000060263 00000 n 0000063936 00000 n 0000067463 00000 n 0000064090 00000 n 0000067442 00000 n 0000213322 00000 n 0000214386 00000 n 0000070845 00000 n 0000067596 00000 n 0000070824 00000 n 0000074560 00000 n 0000216384 00000 n 0000070977 00000 n 0000074539 00000 n 0000214644 00000 n 0000215743 00000 n 0000077584 00000 n 0000074704 00000 n 0000077563 00000 n 0000080760 00000 n 0000077716 00000 n 0000080739 00000 n 0000083950 00000 n 0000080892 00000 n 0000083929 00000 n 0000088451 00000 n 0000084094 00000 n 0000088430 00000 n 0000090970 00000 n 0000088596 00000 n 0000090949 00000 n 0000093889 00000 n 0000216495 00000 n 0000091091 00000 n 0000093868 00000 n 0000097094 00000 n 0000094010 00000 n 0000097073 00000 n 0000101415 00000 n 0000097238 00000 n 0000101394 00000 n 0000104805 00000 n 0000101548 00000 n 0000104783 00000 n 0000108051 00000 n 0000104940 00000 n 0000108029 00000 n 0000112677 00000 n 0000108186 00000 n 0000112655 00000 n 0000116978 00000 n 0000216609 00000 n 0000112811 00000 n 0000116956 00000 n 0000120152 00000 n 0000117114 00000 n 0000120130 00000 n 0000123441 00000 n 0000120276 00000 n 0000123419 00000 n 0000127725 00000 n 0000123565 00000 n 0000127703 00000 n 0000131297 00000 n 0000127849 00000 n 0000131275 00000 n 0000135117 00000 n 0000131421 00000 n 0000135095 00000 n 0000138602 00000 n 0000216727 00000 n 0000135252 00000 n 0000138580 00000 n 0000142546 00000 n 0000138726 00000 n 0000142524 00000 n 0000146415 00000 n 0000142670 00000 n 0000146393 00000 n 0000151482 00000 n 0000146539 00000 n 0000151460 00000 n 0000155065 00000 n 0000151617 00000 n 0000155043 00000 n 0000159285 00000 n 0000155189 00000 n 0000159263 00000 n 0000163285 00000 n 0000216845 00000 n 0000159420 00000 n 0000163263 00000 n 0000167058 00000 n 0000163409 00000 n 0000167036 00000 n 0000171188 00000 n 0000167193 00000 n 0000171166 00000 n 0000174959 00000 n 0000171335 00000 n 0000174937 00000 n 0000179950 00000 n 0000175095 00000 n 0000179928 00000 n 0000185039 00000 n 0000180086 00000 n 0000185017 00000 n 0000188589 00000 n 0000216963 00000 n 0000185163 00000 n 0000188567 00000 n 0000191637 00000 n 0000188713 00000 n 0000191615 00000 n 0000195195 00000 n 0000191761 00000 n 0000195173 00000 n 0000199550 00000 n 0000195331 00000 n 0000199528 00000 n 0000203187 00000 n 0000199686 00000 n 0000203165 00000 n 0000204829 00000 n 0000203323 00000 n 0000204807 00000 n 0000209111 00000 n 0000217081 00000 n 0000204964 00000 n 0000209089 00000 n 0000217159 00000 n 0000217272 00000 n 0000217375 00000 n trailer << /Size 192 /Root 3 0 R /Info 1 0 R /ID [<1c5790df13a572eac162e2198da45ad7><1c5790df13a572eac162e2198da45ad7>] >> startxref 217721 %%EOF