WPCL 2EB UE(3|x)-#C\  P6QP#Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)ofxooof7.7a]7]f]f]7ff..].ffffA]7f]]]SA/Aa.7777CE7\fx]x]x]x]x]x]o]o]o]o]........xfffffxfxfxfxfo]x]xfffo]xfofx]x]x]x]x]x]o]o]o]ffffxfxfCf7f77.f]x]f.fExfxffxAxEo]o]N:.]]7f]]]]]>=]7{{]7..SS]77]].S77t7\[[\aee*C`a.wR]]n[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}.7O]]x(77Aa.7..]]]]]]]]]]77aaafxxxxofx.]xfxoxofxooof7.7a]7]f]f]7ff..].ffffA]7f]]]SA/Aa}}}.]S]]7o7}}}}..SS:]7]7}}o.7]]]]/]7{>]a7{\C\777`].77=]fxxxxxxxoooo....xxaxxxxoof]]]]]]]]]]]....fffffff\fffff]fCourier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT) NQP2s ;w) ZX yO-#C\  P6QP#Arial (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)HP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,PX@xxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2X(xXU4  pQX?^N;XJ^\  P6QP2H  Z  / 3|xHP4Si; Rm. 201_1; LPT2onal)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\UJlX@CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic2p2@z @@F!@ '"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd\nIA?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2X(xXU4  pQX?^N;XJ^\  P6QP.?cN;X(Uc4  pQW!0(X h0\  P6QhPR&HHHX,hH6X@DQh@uuuuuuuuggguuu}uuuNuuNNNWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNuuuNh__uuuuuuRuuuuRNNyyu<<uuuuuNyuR"uyuCuNNNuuuuNuhulcuhhNNNNh[huhNAhhuhuuuhhNuhNNuuuuuuuNuhN /;k  PP9~~+k~~KkKk&&pY"5@^(1<Fx6X@`7X@8wC;,=9Xw PE37XPD7zC;,BXz_ pi7XV"G($,hG PE37hP<R&HHH,d,H6X@`7h@6uC;,~Xu&_ x7XXANE,} PE37PD@NE,U_ pi72L X-  #Xw PE37 DXP# \$//MO&O Granting W39BQ and W30BF carriage on AR Cable, DA95192//$ $/300.535 Carriage of noncommercial translator station signals/$ $/76.61 Disputes concerning carriage/$ ///newjob/// $///DA 95192,3/3/95///$  ` <) # PE37JP#Before the f Federal Communications Commission  `. <Washington, D.C. 20554#Xw PE37 DXP#у  X8 -x` `  hh@hpp  xxDA95192  X-In re:x` `  hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X-Complaints of Maine Public`  hh@h)ppCSR 4397M(#  X-Broadcasting Corporation` hh@h)ppCSR 4398M (#  X-against AR Cable Serviceshh@h)  X-d/b/a Cablevision XXhhX@Xh)(# XxX` ` X XXhhX@Xh)(#  XR-Petitions for Declaratory Ruling and@Xh)(#  X;-Requests for Carriage hh@h)  X -|  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  X- Adopted: February 8, 1995hh@Released: b[  March 7, 1995 b[  By the Cable Services Bureau:  Xl- INTRODUCTION ă 1. On October 5, 1992, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of  X'!-1992 ("1992 Cable Act") became law.{'!Bj X#<ԍ #Xw PE37 DXP#Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).{ On December 4, 1992, the 1992 Cable Act's requirements for mandatory carriage of certain noncommercial educational stations set forth in 5 of the 1992 Act became effective. On October 6, 1994, Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation ("MPBC"), licensee of noncommercial translator stations W39BQ, Lewiston, Maine, and W30BF, Bangor, Maine, (the "Stations") filed separate petitions for declaratory"$y0*((#" ruling seeking to ensure the Stations' carriage on AR Cable Services cable systems (d/b/a"$y0*((#"  X-Cablevision) ("AR" or "Cablevision") serving several Maine communities.e_Bj Xy<ԍ #Xw PE37 DXP#MPBC requests carriage of W39BQ on AR's systems serving Auburn, Sabattus, the Lisbons, Oxford, and Mechanics Falls. MPBC requests carriage of W30BF on AR's systems serving Bar Harbor, Bass Harbor, Bernard, Bucksport, Ellsworth, Manset, Southwest Harbor, Tremont, Verona, Bangor, Bradley, Brewer, Corrina, Dexter, DoverFoxcroft, East Holden, Eddington, Hampden, Holden, Lincoln, Indian Island, Milford, Newport, Old Town, Orono, Orrington, Penobscot Plantation, Stillwater, Veazie, Winterport, Belfast, Searsport, and Winterport.e On December  Y-13, 1994, AR filed separate oppositions/requests for stay to these complaints.u_ Y -ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#On November 22, 1994, Cablevision filed separate motions for extension of time to respond to MPBC's petition for declaratory ruling. On November 30, 1994, MPBC filed its oppositions to AR's motion for extension of time. We do not address the merits of the oppositions since we decide in favor of MPBC and order carriage of W39BQ and W30BF on Cablevision's cable systems. On December 23, 1994, MPBC filed separate replies to these oppositions/requests for stay. We shall jointly consider the two petitions since there is commonality between the parties and the issues.  Y_- SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ă 2. In its petitions for declaratory ruling, MPBC explains that it is a 501(c)(3) corporation operating noncommercial educational TV and radio stations throughout the State of Maine. MPBC further explains that W39BQ and W30BF both translate the signal of full power  Y -noncommercial educational television station WMEATV, Bidderford, Maine D u_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#According to petitioner, WMEATV is licensed to MPBC and is eligible to receive a CSG from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting under Section 396(k)(6)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended. and that W39BQ operates with an effective radiated power of 9.2 kilowatts while W30BF operates with an effective radiated power of 33.65 kilowatts. MPBC asserts that both stations serve the cable operator's franchise areas and both stations are considered "local" because their communities of license are within 50 miles of Cablevision's principal headends. MPBC asserts Cablevision has acknowledged that the Stations qualify for mandatory carriage rights on its cable systems but has not yet initiated carriage for either of them. MPBC asks the Commission to issue orders requiring Cablevision to carry W30BF and W39BQ. 3. In its oppositions, Cablevision presents three arguments explaining why it should not be required to carry either W30BF or W39BQ. First, Cablevision submits that WMEA, through the Stations at issue, airs programming substantially similar to that of WCBB, another MPBC noncommercial educational television station already carried on the systems. Cablevision argues that MPBC is simply using the must carry rules to expand the coverage"0*((" area of WMEA, a nonlocal station that otherwise would provide no service to the cable communities. Second, Cablevision asserts that granting MPBC's requests would have a significant adverse impact on Cablevision's business. Cablevision explains that carriage of the Stations would result in financial losses related to new equipment expenses, costs of notifications to subscribers, and loss of revenue due to the deletion of a cable programming  Y-service.}u_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#Cablevision estimates that it would incur losses of $36,700 in the first year, and $28,000 each year thereafter if it were required to carry W30BF. Additionally, Cablevision estimates that mandatory carriage of W39BQ would cause losses of $100,000 in the first year and $92,000 each additional year.} Finally, Cablevision argues that mandatory carriage of the Station's would abridge its First Amendment rights by forcing it to add to its programming lineup "a governmentally favored class of speaker a noncommercial educational broadcaster in place of a cable programmer whom Cablevision would prefer to carry." In this regard, Cablevision, noting  Y1-the Supreme Court's remand order in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCCp14u_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#See para. 8, infra.p, asks that the Commission defer consideration of MPBC's petitions until a final determination has been made concerning whether the must carry provisions of the 1992 Cable Act comport with the First Amendment. 4. In its replies, MPBC asserts that Cablevision's arguments challenging W30BF and W39BQ's carriage rights are unpersuasive. MPBC first asserts that WCBB's programming is not duplicative of WMEA's because the former caters to a wide, primetime audience while the latter broadcasts programming to targeted and dedicated audiences and "provides a more  Yd-educational and instructional focus."du_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#MPBC includes as exhibits WCBB's and WMEA's daily programming lineup for a typical week to show that the two station's are not substantially similar. As for Cablevision's argument that carriage of the Station's would negatively affect its business, MPBC asserts that the operator's expenses are "speculative and conjectural" since Cablevision fails to provide any evidence to document its figures. MPBC also argues that even if Cablevision's expenses were substantiated, the 1992 Cable Act does not take into account a cable operator's costs in determining the existence of mandatory carriage rights. Finally, MPBC argues that Cablevision's constitutional argument and request for a stay are without merit because the 1992 Cable Act's must carry provisions and the Commission's must carry rules remain in effect. MPBC also asserts that Cablevision acknowledges that the Commission cannot declare the must carry provisions unconstitutional. MPBC closes its replies by arguing that the public interest would be "substantially harmed" by delay of the Stations' carriage because Cablevision's service areas are deprived access to "unique and valuable noncommercial programming."  JN   JN "  0*(("Ԍ Y- ( DISCUSSION ă 5. We uphold the Stations' complaints against Cablevision. Initially, it is important to note that noncommercial translator stations, such as W39BQ and W30BF, have signal  Y-carriage rights.eu_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#47 U.S.C 535(l)(1); 47 C.F.R. 76.55(a)(3)(1). The only conditions which attach are that the translator must operate with five watts of power or higher and that it  Y-serves the franchise area. Id. We recently held that, for purposes of a translator serving the cable system's franchise area, the coverage area of such translator shall be its predicted  Y -protected contour as specified in section 74.707 of the Commission's rules. See  Y -Memorandum Report and Order in MM Docket No. 92259, (Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues), FCC 94251 (released November 4, 1994) at 4. Congress determined that translators should be carried because they are particularly important to state public television networks, like MPBC, in extending television  Yw-signals to rural areas that are located far from the principal communities of the main station.U wu_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#See H.R. Rep. No. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 104 (1992)(Including translators in the definition of qualified noncommercial educational stations ensures carriage by cable systems in remote areas not served by the primary public television licensee.)U Based on the facts presented by MPBC, we find that W39BQ and W30BF are qualified noncommercial educational translator stations, meet the goals of Congress, and are entitled to carriage on Cablevision's systems. 6. We also agree with the Stations that their programming schedule is not substantially duplicative of WCBB, the other noncommercial station carried on Cablevision's systems. Our rules require cable systems with more than 36 usable activated channels to carry the  Y -signals of at least three qualified local NCE educational stations.p z u_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#47 C.F.R. 76.56(a)(1)(iii).p However, a cable system with more than 36 channels shall not be required to carry stations whose programming  Y-substantially duplicates the programming of another qualified local NCE station.Z + u_ Ym-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#Id.Z A station is deemed to substantially duplicate the programming of another station if it broadcasts the same programming, simultaneous, or nonsimultaneous, for more than 50 percent of prime time, as defined in section 76.5(n) of our rules, and more than 50 percent outside of prime  Y5-time over a three month period.c 5u_ Y"-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#Id. at note.c The stations have demonstrated through the submission of detailed program logs that their programming does not substantially duplicate the programming provided by WCCB. As such, the operator cannot rightfully deny the stations' carriage requests on this basis. " 0*(("Ԍ 7. With respect to AR Cable Services' argument that it be excused from compliance with the applicable provisions of the law because of the expense of compliance, we note that the obligations in question are statutory requirements and that AR Cable Services has cited no authority for the Commission to waive the statute in the manner requested. No such  Y-authority is explicitly set forth in sections 614 and 615 of the 1992 Cable Act.  eu_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP# The 1992 Cable Act did provide the Commission with the authority to waive the  Y-channel positioning provisions under extenuating circumstances.  See Broadcast Signal  Y-Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd 2965 at para. 91 (1993)("Only where placement of a signal on a chosen channel results in interference or degraded signal quality to the mustcarry station or an adjacent channel, or causes a substantial technical or signal security problem, will we permit cable operators to carry a broadcast signal on a channel not chosen by the station.")  Y -Compare Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361, 368 (1974).  8. Finally, we find that Cablevision's constitutional argument is without merit and deny the operator a stay of our signal carriage rules. The constitutionality of the must carry  YH-provisions of the 1992 Cable Act were challenged before the Supreme Court. In Turner  Y3-Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. FCC, a special threejudge panel of the District Court for the  Y -District of Columbia found the must carry provisions constitutional. u_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#See Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 819 F.Supp. 32 (D.D.C. 1993). On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded the case back to the three judge panel for  Y -further proceedings. u_ YI-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#See Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994). However, the Court did not stay the statute's must carry provisions or our rules while the case is on remand. Thus, while the case is pending, the mustcarry provisions of the 1992 Cable Act remain in effect, as do the Commission's mustcarry  Y -rules. [ u_ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37=9XP#See Memorandum Report and Order, FCC 94251 at 2. We believe it would run contrary to the public interest to grant a stay and deny the stations the right to enforce their valid signal carriage rights in this instance. 9. Accordingly, the petitions filed on October 6, 1994, by Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation, ARE GRANTED, in accordance with Section 615(j)(3) (47 U.S.C. 535) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. AR Cable Services IS ORDERED to commence carriage of W39BQ and W30BF on its cable systems within fortyfive (45) days from the  Y -release date of this Order.  JN  "k 0*((l"Ԍ JN  10. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by section O.321 of the Commission's Rules. x` `  hh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  JN   JN   JN!   JN!  x` `  hh William H. Johnson x` `  hh Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau