WPCeK 2MBERKZ3|a X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\HP4M (PCL) (Additional); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRS&a\  P6G;\"\&P2gEKX X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ2 K Z XN 3|a"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S-   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;9XP##&a\  P6G;&P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2pkek;a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  29vt a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 22 k   sa3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2d,a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2^a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2Z"l !!a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2("3#E$eI(a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %.77\V%%%7K%7777777777%%KKK7eDDIODDOO%0I>\IODOD7>OD\D>>**.7%77070770O7777**70I00*,,;%;.%%%%%%%%%7%7D7D7D7D7D7aII0D0D0D0D0%%%%I7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7>0D7O7O7O7>0O7D7D7D7D7I0I0I;I0OBD0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7T7;;I0>>(>%>#>I7@I7I7O7O7gID*D*D*7*7*7*;;>(>>.O7O7O7O7O7O7\I>;>*>*>*O7>%I77*>%>7B77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(97*77777l7#TT7!#TT7T!%%>>7a&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(;TT77a%>7\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7KlBBn7"i~'^0?]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Snnnxnnx?Sngxxgxn]gxnngg9/9]S9SSISI9S]//S/]SSS??/]InSI?9%9]9+]]999+999999S9S/nSnSnSnSnSxnInInInInI?/?/?/?/x]xSxSxSxSx]x]x]x]gInSxSxSxSgIxSgSnSnSnSnInIn]nIx{nInInInIxSxSxSx]xS]]?/?S?9?S]]]nSg/gWg9g?g/x]ux]x]xSxSxn?n?n?]?]?]?]]gZg/g]x]x]x]x]x]x]ng]g?g?g?xSg9x]]?g9gS{+SS8/8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(-((((((((((---#J:55:2-:::2F::-:5-2::K::2%(#(#(#(((>((((((:((#&&++%(:#:#:#:#:#F45#2#2#2#2#:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:#:(:':(:(:(-(:#:#:#5#5#5+5#:22#2#2#2#:(:(:(:+:(:+:(((8-++:(22 222:(/:(:(:(:(F:555----+2"22%:(:(:(:(:(:(K::+2#2#2#:(2:(-2:(2((W888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN00%(#((((M(==(==(=##(P0P((N1=PP00/CC--P#(CP"5555==JPP(=P0.+(-N00P("i~'^'-5CCph---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#--------C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCQe0PP0OooKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPCy.X80,X\  P6G;P 7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X y.\80,T\4  pG;P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP \0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X\Q9% ,%z*J9*f9 xr G;JXz-X80,<<X9 xOG;a$G,',G\  P6G;P:*,*\  P6G;PuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdaySunMonTueWedThuFriSat14 4GM0 S- X    S-  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 972105 ă  yxdddy Պv3 #X\  P6G;P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 X01Í ÍX01Í  Í҃  S0-#&a\  P6G;&P# R)  S-In Re Time Warner Inc.R)hppCSR 4998X R) Petition for Special ReliefR) Requesting Waiver of R) 47 C.F.R.  76.501(a)R)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  Sx -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:which is just a few months after the temporary waiver will expire. TWI argues that the Commission  xshould not require TWI to undertake a costly and complex divestiture when abolition of the  xMbroadcast/cable crossownership rule would eliminate the necessity therefor. TWI proposes that the  S`- xCommission grant TWI a conditional waiver similar to that granted in Stockholders of Infinity  S:- xBroadcasting Corporation, which waived the onetoamarket rule until six months after the Commission  S-issues a decision in the ongoing broadcast ownership rulemaking.L&: {O|- xԍStockholders of Infinity Broadcasting, 11 FCC Rcd 17829 (1996) (1996). TWI also cited In re Application of  {OF- xWHFS, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 3965 (1997) (granting temporary conditional waiver of onetoamarket rule based on case {O - xbycase analysis). It further noted Roy M. Speer, 11 FCC Rcd 18393 (1996) and Quincy D. Jones, 11 FCC Rcd 2481 (1996) (findings of rule compliance conditioned on the outcome of ongoing rulemaking proceedings).L  S-( DISCUSSION ă  St- ` x7.` ` For the reasons discussed below, we find that TWI has not demonstrated that a permanent  xwaiver of Section 76.501(a) would be in the public interest, nor has TWI presented sufficient justification  xyfor an extension of the temporary waiver until six months after the completion of a rulemaking which has not commenced.  S - Permanent Waiver  S\- ` x8.` ` Section 76.501(a) of the Commission's Rules prohibits the common ownership and/or  xycontrol of a television station and a colocated cable television system. The stated policy goals of Section  x^76.501(a) were to "further the Commission's policy of favoring diversity of control over mass  S- xycommunications media" : {O:- xԍAmendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna  {O-Systems, Second Report and Order, 23 FCC 2d 816, 820 (1970) ("Second Report and Order"). and to increase competition in the economic marketplace and in the marketplace  S- xyof ideas. : {On- xKԍ See In Re Kilgore Cable TV Company, 11 FCC Rcd 1684, 1685 (1996) and Western Communications, Inc., 58 RR 2d 136, 138 (1985). This regulatory restriction was subsequently codified into a statutory restriction by the Cable  S- xCommunications Policy Act of 1984 l : {O-ԍSee P. L. 98549, 98 Stat. 2780, October 30, 1984, adding 47 U. S. C.  613(a)(1)., and this codification was then repealed by the Telecommunications  Sl- xAct of 1996. l : yO -ԍSee Section 202(i) of P. L. 104104; 110 Stat. 56, approved February 8, 1996, repealing 47 U. S. C.  613(a)(1). Prior to codification of Section 76.501 in 1984, the Commission, on a number of  SD- x=occasions, granted waivers of the rule.^ \D : {Or"- xԍSee, e. g., Village of Solvay, 39 RR 2d ll97 (Cable Television Bureau, 1977); CBC Telecommunications Corp.,  {O<#- x46 RR 2d 1482 (Cable Television Bureau, 1980); PNG Communications Co., 51 RR 2d 471 (Cable Television Bureau, l982).^ Since repeal of the statutory prohibition, the Commission again  x/has the authority to grant waivers of Section 76.501 in cases where enforcement of the ban on crossownership does not promote these goals. " ,`(`(88"Ԍ S- ` x9.` ` Prior to 1984, the Commission granted permanent waivers of the broadcast/cable television  x<crossownership rule when the petitioner demonstrated that the waiver was necessary to promote diversity  xand competition in a market; when, for example, it was found unlikely that a cable operator other than  S- xthe party with a crossownership conflict would be interested in providing service to the community.Z: {O- xԍSee PNG Communications Co., 51 RR 2d 471 (Cable Television Bureau, l982). See also Village of Solvay, 39  xRR 2d at 1200 (Granted waiver to parent of licensee of broadcast station because small size of community made it unlikely that an independent cable operator would provide service).   xWaivers were also granted when petitioners demonstrated that "separation of the colocated properties  xwould not result in greater diversity or that there are certain additional public benefits flowing from  S- xcontinued common ownership that would outweigh any impact on diversity."k: {O -ԍIn Re Kansas State Network, Inc., 67 FCC 2d 737, 740 (1978). k Waivers were found in  xythe public interest when, for example, "the television station or the cable system required the revenues of  S-the coowned property for survival."?|: {O - xԍId. at 74041 citing Valley Broadcasters, Inc., 37 FCC 2d 613 (1972); Thoms Broadcasting Corp., 44 FCC 2d  {O-230 (1973); Full V.U. Television, 44 FCC 2d 305 (1973); and Cablevision of Augusta, Inc., 62 FCC 2d 184 (1976).?  Sp- ` x 10.` ` Unlike the previously granted waivers, TWI has not demonstrated that the situation  SH - xjpresented here is anything other than the ordinary situation that the rules were intended to cover.H : yO- xwԍTWI makes passing reference to the "complex, costly, and protracted" process of divesting the system but there  xis no information provided as to any effort to sell the system during the temporary waiver period or during the period  xwhen the Time WarnerTurner merger was pending. It does appear, however, that Time Warner is in the process  {O- xof voluntarily divesting systems in other markets. See "Time Warner Puts Some Cable Systems on the Block, Will  {O-Focus on Key Areas," Wall Street Journal, August 4, 1997 page B6. TWI  xhas not argued that granting the waiver would promote diversity or competition nor that the waiver would  S -provide a public benefit.D& : yO$- xԍTWI has not suggest that grant of a waiver would result in any specific public interest benefit. In other cross {O- xownership cases, the Commission has considered public benefits offered by those seeking a waiver of our rules. See,  {O- xe.g., Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 5841, 5908 (1996) ("Capital Cities/ABC (Disney)") and In re Applications  {O-of WHOATV and Park of Montgomery II, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 20041, 2004445 (1996). D  S - ` x 11.` ` TWI argues that a permanent waiver here would be consistent with recent rulings in  S - xduopoly and onetoamarket cases.9 z: yO-ԍPetition at 816.9 We disagree that the duopoly cases cited by TWI, which involve  xcrossownership of two or more broadcast stations where there is overlap in the predicted Grade B  xcontours, are controlling or relevant to the facts here. In the duopoly cases cited, the broadcast stations  S- xwere not in the same market area (DMA or ADI).Z : {O#- xԍCapital Cities/ABC (Disney), 11 FCC Rcd 5841 (granted permanent duopoly waiver for stations located in  xseparate New York and Philadelphia markets but denied permanent waiver for duopoly within the Los Angeles  xmarket). The cases cited by TWI granted waivers of the duopoly rule to permit crossownership of stations in  xseparate markets (New York and Philadelphia; San Diego and Los Angeles; Augusta, GA and Spartanburg, NC).  {O&-See TWI's Chart, Petition at 12.Z In contrast to the duopoly cases, TWI's petition does",`(`(88 "  xnot present two separate markets; rather TWI's broadcast station and cable system are in the same market and two of the counties served by the Summit cable system are within WTBSTV's Grade A contour.  S- ` x 12.` ` TWI argues further that the "presumptive standard" the Commission applies in onetoa S`- xmarket cases,"`: yO- xԍThe Commission presumptively favors waivers of the onetoa market rule when the combination in question  xserves one of the top 25 markets and where there would be at least 30 separate broadcast licensees, or "voices," after  {OX- xthe creation of the proposed combination. See 47 C.F.R.  73.3555, Note 7(1); see also Capital Cities/ABC (Disney), 11 FCC Rcd at 5875. should apply to TWI, by analogy, because Atlanta is the tenth largest DMA in the country  S8- xKwith 45 separatelyowned broadcast stations.8: {O - xԍPetition at 1315 citing Stockholders of Infinity Broadcasting Corporation, 11 FCC Rcd 17813 (1996) and  {OT -Stockholders of CBS, 11 FCC Rcd 3733 (1996). While it is true that onetoa market cases involve multiple  xyownership within one market, onetoa market cases apply to common ownership of television and radio  xstations and the presumptive waiver standard is part of the rule and was adopted through a rulemaking  xprocess Such a standard has not been adopted or proposed by the Commission with respect to the  xbroadcast/cable television crossownership rule. The Commission has specifically recognized that the  xissues and goals in the radio/television crossownership (onetoa market) rule are not necessarily the same  SH - x=as in the broadcast/cable television crossownership rule.H : {O-ԍAmendment of Section 73.3555, Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 1741, n. 31 (1989). We note, too, that in onetoa market waiver  xcases evaluated on a casebycase basis, the Commission looks to demonstrations of the "potential public  S - xservice benefits of joint ownership" as a factor in determining whether to grant the waiver." : {O8- xԍSee, e.g. In re Application of Omni Broadcasting Company, File No. BAPH970317GG (DA 971405, released  x July 8, 1997) (noting as to the first criterion in the casebycase approach that the projected economies of scale would  xproduce savings that would permit programming improvements, including communitybased programming and outreach). No effort has been made to demonstrate any such benefits in this proceeding.  S - ` Bx 13.` ` TWI further contends that the mustcarry rules will assure that common ownership of  xWTBS(TV) and the Summit cable system will not result in abuse of the other broadcast stations in the  xMAtlanta market. TWI notes that the mustcarry rules were recently affirmed and argues that this will  x assure carriage and channel positioning rights to all stations in the Atlanta DMA. We agree that the  xmustcarry rules lessen the risk of anticompetitive treatment of other local broadcasters by a cable system  xydirectly or indirectly owned by a broadcast station. This concern is, however, but one of the goals of the  S- x=broadcast/cable television crossownership rule.| : yO - xzԍAs noted above, the policy goals of the broadcast/cable television crossownership rule are to increase  xZcompetition in the economic marketplace as well as the marketplace of ideas. The presence of local mustcarry  {OJ"- xstations is but one factor to be considered in determining whether to grant a waiver. Kilgore Cable TV, 11 FCC Rcd  xKat 1685. While the mustcarry rules reduce the discretion cable operators have in the carriage of local broadcast  xsignals they do not eliminate it entirely. The rules only require that a portion of an operator's channel capacity be  xJdevoted to carriage of local signals and it is not always that case that all signals from the same ADI or DMA market  {Ol%-must be carried. See e.g., MediaOne, Inc., (DA 971776, adopted August 15, 1997) Indeed the existence of mandatory signal carriage rules  xin force at the time the rule here in question was adopted did not result in a conclusion that the rule was  xunnecessary. Whether the implementation of the mustcarry rules will obviate the need for the"@,`(`(88c"  xMbroadcast/cable television crossownership rule or permit modifications to the rule are questions best addressed in the rulemaking context rather than in a waiver proceeding.  S- ` x 14.` ` There is also little basis for the conclusion urged by TWI that the overlap in question is  xjsimply too insignificant to warrant concern. The system in question has in excess of 68,000 subscribers.  S8- xTWI refers to the number of households affected by the crossownership as de minimis, involving only  x4.8% of television household in the Atlanta market area. TWI, however, cites no precedent for its  S- xconclusion that this degree of overlap is so small that it may be ignored as de minimis in nature. In  S- xWHOATV, Inc.=q yO, -ԍ 11 FCC Rcd at 20044.=, an overlap of 2.1% was said to exceed the de minimis standard of 1% in duopoly cases,  S- xciting Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.,?X: yO -ԍ 2 FCC Rcd 7374 (1987).? involving nor more than .43% of the population in the stations' Grade B contour  S( - ` $x15.` ` TWI finally relies also on the elimination of the cable/network crossownership rule,<$( : yO- xJԍ47 C.F.R.  76.501(a)(1) prohibited crossownership of cable systems and national television networks. Section  x<202(f)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the Commission to revise  76.501 to permit cross {O@- x,ownership of a network and a cable system. The Commission so revised  76.501. In the Matter of Implementation  {O -of Sections 202(f), 202(i) and 301(i) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15115 (1996).<  x=mandated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the pending relaxation of the duopoly and onetoa  S - xLmarket rules& : {OL- xԍReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Second Further Notice of Proposed  {O- xYRulemaking, (Duopoly), 11 FCC Rcd 21655 (1996) ("Television Ownership (Duopoly) Second Further Notice") and  {O- xReview of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (OnetoaMarket), 10 FCC Rcd. 3524 (1995).  to support its argument that the presence of a diverse and allegedly competitive market in  xthe Atlanta area justifies grant of a permanent waiver of the broadcast/cable television crossownership  xrule. We find that while TWI's analogies to other types of multiple ownership analyses could provide  xsupport for revising the rule, it provides no public interest basis for granting a waiver. The waiver  xprocess, by its very nature, presumes unique circumstances or some special public interest benefit that  x=indicates that the underlying basis for the rule in question is inapplicable. TWI has presented nothing in  xjits petition that would distinguish this situation from any other comparably sized cable system in a large  xtelevision market. Consequently, we conclude that the public interest would not be served by granting a permanent waiver of the broadcast/cable television crossownership rule in this case.  SH- Extension of Temporary Waiver  S- ` ax16.` ` TWI proposes that, if it is not granted a permanent waiver of Section 76.501(a), its  xtemporary waiver should be extended until six months after the conclusion of the Commission's review  xand rulemaking on the continued efficacy of the broadcast/cable television crossownership rule, as  x/required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. TWI argues that such a conditional waiver would be  xiconsistent with the Commission's approach with respect to requests for waivers of the duopoly and oneto S0- xamarket rules, as well as the attribution rulemaking.:0 : yO'-ԍPetition at 1920.: For the reasons discussed below, we disagree with"0R ,`(`(88{"  xTWI's argument that granting a waiver when, as here, there is no pending rulemaking and no proposed  xkrevised rule under consideration, is equivalent or analogous to granting a conditional waiver during the  xpendency of a rulemaking, when the waiver sought is consistent with the revised rule under  S-consideration.X : {O- xԍIn the Television Ownership (Duopoly) Second Further Notice, supra, note 28, the Commission stated its  xinclination to grant waivers of the duopoly rule during the pendency of the proceeding so long as the stations were  xin different DMAs with no overlapping Grade A contours because the tentative conclusion of the proceeding is to  x<authorize common ownership in such situations. The Commission, however, conditioned such waivers upon the  xstations coming into compliance with the outcome of the proceeding within six months of its conclusion.  xAccordingly, it recently granted a conditional waiver of the duopoly rule where the television stations were in  {O - xseparate DMAs and there was no Grade A overlap. See In re Request of Gray Communications Systems, Inc.,  {Ol - xi(MMB) DA 971521 (released July 21, 1997). See also In re Request of Gannett Co., Inc., (MMB) DA 971635  xx(released August 4, 1997). We note that, even by analogy to the duopoly rule, TWI's crossownership would not  xsatisfy the criteria for a conditional waiver because WTBS and the Summit cable system are within the same DMA,  x,and the communities served by the cable system are with WTBSTV's Grade A contour. In another recent case, the  xCommission granted a sixmonth waiver of the duopoly rules even though the stations' Grade A contours overlapped.  {OV- x;In re Application of Argyle Television, Inc., FCC 97250 (released July 16, 1997). Emphasizing that the waiver was  xtemporary and brief, and citing "extraordinary circumstances," the Commission granted the waiver because the  {O- xstations were in separate DMAs and the temporary waiver was necessary to allow a merger. Id.,  13. In contrast, TWI is not now seeking a temporary waiver to facilitate a merger. X  S8- ` x17.` ` The 1996 Telecommunications Act provides that the Commission review all of its  x.ownership rules biennially "and determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest  x[as the result of competition [and] . . . repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the  S- xpublic interest."W : yOz-ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996 ,  202(h). W However, it is premature to forecast now whether the Commission will determine that  xthis rule requires repeal or modification, and if modification is necessary in the public interest, how the  Sp- xlrule would be modified.!|p: yO- xԍWith respect to Section 202(i) of the Telecommunications Act, which repealed the statutory restriction on  xbroadcast/cable television crossownership formerly in  613(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Conference Report noted:  XxThe conferees do not intend that this repeal of the statutory prohibition should prejudge the  {O- outcome of any review by the Commission of its rules. Joint Explanatory Statement of the  {Ol-Committee of Conference , (to accompany S. 652), 104th Cong., 2d Sess. at 48 (1996) Ʊ Thus, it is likewise premature to grant a conditional waiver pending the  x0outcome of a rulemaking that may not occur or that may propose a rule with which TWI's cross S - xownership would still not comply." : yO!- xZԍWe are particularly concerned with the dangerous precedent granting such a conditional waiver could present if other entities affected by any of the regulations subject to biennial review sought similar speculative waivers. What TWI is suggesting would effectively abolish the rule subject  S -only to the possibility that it might be restored as part of the biennial review process.  =#s " F",`(`(88k "  S- =#s 1ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S- ` Px18.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the captioned petition for special relief filed by Time  xWarner Inc. requesting permanent waiver of the Commission's broadcast/cable television crossownership rule,  76.501(a), IS DENIED.  S- ` _x19.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321 (1996). x` ` x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau