WPCj- 2MB%RK<3|aTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"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)#&a\  P6G;&P#xSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNg\\>>>\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\Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"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\2KK KVK"i~'^5Fg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\"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~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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"" j(] yO"-ԍ47 U.S.C.  548(b).>  " ,`(`(88"Ԍ x{To achieve its stated purpose in enacting this prohibition, Congress instructed the Commission to promulgate regulations that, among other things:  BXx(A) establish effective safeguards to prevent a cable operator which has an attributable  interest in a satellite cable programming vendor or a satellite broadcast programming  vendor from unduly or improperly influencing the decision of such vendor to sell, or the  prices, terms, and conditions of sale of, satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast  S-programming to any unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributor; [and]j (] yOP-ԍCommunications Act  628(c)(2)(A), 47 U.S.C.  548(c)(2)(A).j   Xx(B) prohibit discrimination by a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable  #operator has an attributable interest or by a satellite broadcast programming vendor in the  prices, terms, and conditions of sale or delivery of satellite cable programming or satellite  %broadcast programming among or between cable systems, cable operators, or other  S -MVPDs or their agents or buying groups. . . . ( X(] yO- xԍCommunications Act  628(c)(2)(B), 47 U.S.C.  548(c)(2)(B). Congress provided limited exceptions to this prohibition. A satellite programming vendor is not prohibited from:  Xx(i) imposing reasonable requirements for creditworthiness, offering of service, and financial  stability and standards regarding character and technical quality; (ii) establishing different prices,  terms, and conditions to take into account actual and reasonable differences in the cost of creation,  "sale, delivery, or transmission of satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming;  (iii) establishing different prices, terms, and conditions which take into account economies of scale,  cost savings, or other direct and legitimate economic benefits reasonably attributable to the number  of subscribers served by the distributor; or (iv) entering into an exclusive contract that is permitted under subparagraph (D) [of this section].   {MP-Id.Ē   S - ` 2x5.` ` In Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and  xyCompetition Act of 1992: Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution  SZ- xand Carriage, MM Docket No. 92265, First Report and Order ("Program Access Report and Order"),> ZH (] yOB-ԍ8 FCC Rcd 3359 (1993).>  S4- xthe Commission adopted implementing regulations and set forth procedures for adjudicating complaints.N4(] yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1000 76.1003.N  xSection 76.1002 of the Commission's rules prohibits satellite cable programming vendors in which a cable operator has an attributable interest and satellite broadcast programming vendors from discriminating:  `Xxin the prices, terms, and conditions of sale or delivery of satellite cable programming or  satellite broadcast programming among or between competing cable systems, competing  SD-cable operators, or competing multichannel video programming distributors.Dh(] yOL&- x ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1002(b). The prohibition is subject to the limited exceptions enumerated in Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  548(c)(2)(B). "D,`(`(88T"Ԍ xԙCable operators with an attributable interest in a satellite cable programming vendor or a satellite broadcast  xprogramming vendor may not improperly or unduly influence the prices, terms, or conditions of sale of  S-the vendor's programming to an MVPD.B(] yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1002(a).B  S`- ` x6.` ` An MVPD may bring a complaint against a satellite cable programming vendor, satellite  xybroadcast programming vendor, or cable operator that the MVPD believes has violated the Commission's  S-program access rules.?X(] yO -ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1003.? An MVPD is defined in the Commission's rules as:  Xxan entity engaged in the business of making available for purchase, by subscribers or  $customers, multiple channels of video programming. Such entities include, but are not  limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct  $broadcast satellite service, a television receiveonly satellite program distributor, and a  satellite master antenna television system operator, as well as buying groups or agents of  S -all such entities.B (] yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1000(e).B   xA satellite cable programming vendor is "a person engaged in the production, creation, or wholesale  S - xdistribution for sale of satellite cable programming . . . ."] x(] yO-ԍ47 U.S.C.  548(i)(2); 47 C.F.R.  76.1000(i). ] A satellite broadcast programming vendor is  xz"a fixed service satellite carrier that provides service pursuant to section 119 of title 17, United States  S0- xCode, with respect to satellite broadcast programming."0(] yO- xԍ47 U.S.C.  548(i)(4); 47 C.F.R.  76.1000(g). Section 119 of Title 17 of the United States Code governs the  xwsecondary transmission of superstations and network stations for private home viewing. 17 U.S.C.  119. The term  x"satellite broadcast programming" means "broadcast video programming when such programming is retransmitted  xby satellite and the entity retransmitting such programming is not the broadcaster or an entity performing such  xiretransmission on behalf of and with the specific consent of the broadcaster." 47 U.S.C.  548(i)(3); 47 C.F.R.  76.1000(f). Under the Commission's attribution standards,  xya cable operator will be considered to have an attributable interest in a satellite cable programming vendor  xor a satellite broadcast programming vendor if the cable operator holds five percent or more of the stock  x/of the programmer, whether voting or non-voting, or if the operator holds limited partnership equity  S-interests of five percent or more. (] {O -ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.501 Note, 76.1000(b); Program Access Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 3370.  S@- ` x7.` ` The Commission stated in the Program Access Report and Order that discrimination exists  x"when the same or essentially the same programming service is sold to competing distributors at different  xprices or pursuant to different terms or conditions. Such discrimination is prohibited if not justified under  S- xzone or more of the specific factors enumerated in the statute."M(] yO|&-ԍ8 FCC Rcd at 3400 (footnote omitted).M The complainant bears the burden of  S- xmaking a prima facie showing that there is a difference between the prices terms, or conditions charged",`(`(88"  x.or offered to the complainant and its competitor by a satellite programming vendor that is subject to the  S- xprogram access rules.:(] {O@-ԍId. at 3416.: To make this showing, a complainant must establish that: (1) the defendant is a  xsatellite cable programming vendor that meets the Commission's attribution standards or a satellite  x!broadcast programming vendor; (2) the complainant competes with the MVPD to which it seeks  xcomparison; and (3) the vendor has provided or offered different terms and conditions, or different prices  S8-to the complainant and its competitor.8Z(] {O2- xԍId. at 341617. The complainant can establish different prices, terms, and conditions using a rate card, other  xgenerally available information, or the current contract between the vendor and the complainant's competitor. 47  xC.F.R.  76.1003(c)(1)(ix). A complainant lacking access to comparative information can file a complaint on  xinformation and belief if the vendor has refused the complainant's request, made by certified mail, that the vendor  {OT -provide the necessary information. Program Access Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 3417; 47 C.F.R.  76.1003(c)(1)(ix).   S-  III. SUMMARY OF THE PLEADINGS ă  S- ` Px8.` ` Wizard describes itself as a television receiveonly ("TVRO") satellite program distributor  Sp- x"or an agent of such a distributor" and asserts that it is an MVPD.7p(] yO-ԍComplaint at 2.7 TVRO distributors distribute  x programming to owners of largediameter home satellite dishes ("HSDs") designed to receive Cband  S - x.satellite transmissions. (] yO^- xwԍCband dishes are typically 7 to 10 feet in diameter. Generally, they are not used to receive digital broadcasting  xservice ("DBS"), which is programming distributed through satellite transmissions using the Kuband to dishes as  x;small as 18 inches in diameter. HSD dealers sometimes offer programming to customers when they purchase a dish.  xThe programming may be packaged and sold under the dealer's name, or the dealer may act as a sales agent for  {O~- xanother entity. See generally Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and  xxCompetition Act of 1992: Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video  {O- xProgramming, CS Docket No. 9448, 9 FCC Rcd 7442, 7473, 7475, 747879 (1994); Implementation of Sections of  {O- xthe Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5651  {O- xn.62, 5660 n.98 (1993); Implementation of Section 25 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition  {On- xAct of 1992: Direct Broadcast Satellite Public Service Obligations, MM Docket No. 9325, 8 FCC Rcd 1589, 158990 (1993). Wizard states that it distributes satellite broadcast programming packages that  S -are "packaged and supplied by" SNG.7 (] yO-ԍComplaint at 2.7  S - ` x9.` ` Wizard alleges that SNG is both a satellite broadcast programming vendor and an  S - xLMVPD.9 (] {O"-ԍId. at 23.9 Wizard further contends that, as an MVPD, SNG competes directly with Wizard in the retail  SX- xsale of SNG's satellite broadcast programming packages to subscribers.7X*(] {O"%-ԍId. at 3.7 Wizard asserts that SNG and"X,`(`(88K"  S- xzWizard "retail" identical programming packages under different names."(] {Oh- xԍId. Wizard states that its packages are known as Basic Wizard, Family Wizard, Movie Wizard, Super Wizard,  x,Absolute Wizard, and Super Wizard Ultimate (citing Complaint Exh. 2). SNG's allegedly identical packages, Wizard  xstates, are called OneStop, OneStop Expanded, Expanded Plus, Absolute Netlink, and Ultimate (citing Complaint Exh. 3). Wizard alleges that TCI is a  S-cable operator that has an attributable interest in SNG.8(] {O*-ԍId. at 25.8  S- ` x 10.` ` According to Wizard, since March 1994, pursuant to an agreement with SNG, it has  S`- x.marketed SNG's programming to subscribers under Wizard's name at retail prices established by SNG. `D(] {OD -ԍId. at 4, 710. Apparently, the agreement was never memorialized in a written contract. See id. at 1214.  S8- xlThe terms of the agreement were renegotiated in February, 1996.!8(] {O - xLԍId. at 1620. The renegotiated terms are discussed in a memorandum dated February 27, 1996, which is attached to Wizard's complaint. Wizard explains that under its  xkagreement with SNG, Wizard advertises SNG's programming and directs potential customers to call a  S- xtelephone number that connects callers to telephones located at SNG's offices.@"0 (] {O-ԍId. at 78, 1920.@ Wizard states that SNG  S- xagreed to provide operators to handle these telephone inquiries and close sales of programming to callers.8# (] {O"-ԍId. at 19.8  x[Wizard states that SNG bills subscribers who purchase programming packaged under Wizard's name and  Sp-handles other customer service functions for such subscribers.<$pT (] {Od-ԍId. at 19, 23.<  S - ` x 11.` ` Wizard alleges that SNG has violated the Communications Act and the Commission's  xprogram access rules by offering directly to subscribers at lower prices the same programming that Wizard  xmarkets and by failing to perform its obligations under its agreement with Wizard, including obligations  S - xjconcerning recordkeeping, reporting, and customer service functions.;% (] {O.-ԍId. at 2024.; These acts, according to Wizard,  x\constitute unlawful discrimination in the prices, terms, and conditions of service offered by SNG and  SX- xunfair and deceptive practices.&Xx(] {Op - x-ԍId. at 46, 22, 24. Wizard alleges that SNG's failure to keep accurate records of Wizard customers, provide  xydaily sales reports to Wizard, properly market Wizard's services to callers, and provide understandable bills to  xcustomers have deprived Wizard of its due commissions and have impaired Wizard's ability to compete in the sale  {O"- xof satellite broadcast programming. Id. at 2024. Wizard adds that SNG also discriminates against Wizard in SNG's  {O#-dealings with other distributors of SNG's programming against whom Wizard competes. Id. at 67. Wizard contends that TCI also has violated the Communications Act and  x>the Commission's program access rules because it has an attributable interest in SNG and has unduly  S- xinfluenced SNG's prices, terms, and conditions of sale of satellite broadcast programming.;'.(] {O&-ԍId. at 2526.; Wizard seeks"',`(`(88:"  xdamages and any other remedies necessary for the Commission to enforce the Communications Act and  S-its program access rules.8((] {O@-ԍId. at 26.8  S- ` }x 12.` ` In its Answer, SNG argues that Wizard is not an MVPD or an agent of an MVPD as those  S`- xterms are defined in the Commission's rules;:)`Z(] yOZ-ԍSNG Answer at 79.: that SNG is not a satellite programming vendor and does  S8- xnot sell programming to Wizard;9*8(] {O -ԍId. at 46.9 that Wizard and SNG are not competitors;:+8|(] {OT -ԍId. at 910.: that SNG has not engaged  S- xkin acts prohibited by the Communications Act or the program access rules;B,(] {O -ԍId. at 1011, 1315.B and that Wizard has not  S- x/shown that it was harmed by SNG's acts.;-(] {O(-ԍId. at 1213.; SNG further contends that the statute of limitations has  xexpired with respect to any alleged violations that occurred more than one year prior to the date when  S-Wizard filed its complaint.^.2 (] {Oj-ԍId. at 1415 (citing 47 C.F.R.  76.1000(r)).^  SH - ` x 13.` ` SNG notes in its Answer that Wizard filed a breach of contract action against SNG in  S - xfederal district court on the same day it filed its complaint in this proceeding./ (] {O- xiԍId. at 23 (citing Wizard Programming, Inc. v. Superstar/Netlink Group, LLC, No. 3:97 CV 1062 (GLG) (D. Conn. filed June 2, 1997). On October 21, 1997,  xSNG filed a Motion for Leave To Supplement its Answer and the record in this proceeding to include the  xcourt's October 14, 1997 order denying Wizard's motion for preliminary injunction in the breach of  S -contract action ("District Court Order").0 (] {Of- xԍ Wizard Programming, Inc. v. Superstar/Netlink Group, LLC, No. 3:97 CV 1062 (GLG), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1997 WL 644082 (D. Conn. Oct. 14, 1997) (not reported).  SZ- ` x 14.` ` TCI asserts in its Answer that it did not influence any of SNG's alleged actions and that  xTCI cannot be named as a defendant to Wizard's complaint solely on the basis of TCI's indirect  S - xownership interest in SNG.:1 x(] yO""-ԍTCI Answer at 23.: TCI states that Wizard has not made any factual allegations of wrongdoing  S-by TCI.2(] {O$-ԍId. at 2. TCI also argues that Wizard has not demonstrated that it has been harmed by SNG or TCI. Id.ě  S- ` Px15.` ` In its Reply, Wizard generally denies the affirmative defenses raised by SNG and requests  x\that the Commission direct the parties to submit discovery proposals and briefs and allow Wizard to"j2,`(`(88"  S- x>submit additional evidence that it obtained after it filed its Complaint.<3(] yOh-ԍWizard Reply at 57.< In support of its request for  x=discovery and the opportunity to file additional evidence, Wizard states that it has obtained information  xin the federal court proceeding it initiated that demonstrates that SNG is in fact a satellite broadcast  S- xprogramming vendor within the meaning of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules.4\X(] {O- xԍId. at 4. Wizard claims the information it obtained in the federal court proceeding also supports Wizard's  yOJ- xclaims regarding price discrimination and unfair and deceptive practices and demonstrates that SNG competes with  {O-Wizard in the distribution of satellite broadcast programming. Id.   x@Wizard also replied to the Answer of TCI, denying all affirmative defenses raised by TCI and  x>incorporating by reference Wizard's requests that the Commission direct the parties to file discovery  S-proposals and briefs.q5|(] yO, -ԍAll page references to the "Wizard Reply" refer to Wizard's reply to SNG.q  S- ` x16.` ` Concurrently with the filing of its Answer, SNG filed a request for confidential treatment  xof certain documents and information ("SNG Confidentiality Request") pursuant to Section 76.1003(h) of  Sp- xthe Commission's rules.6p (] yO- xԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1003(h). Wizard did not oppose SNG's request. Section 76.1003(h) of the Commission's rules  xprovides for restricted access to materials that are either "generated or provided by" the party that submits them if  xthe party believes in good faith that the materials meet the standards for nondisclosure enumerated in the Freedom  xof Information Act ("FOIA"). 5 U.S.C.  552(b). If confidential treatment is challenged, the party seeking  xconfidential treatment will have the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the materials in question fall within the scope of the FOIA protections. 47 C.F.R.  76.1003(h). SNG asserts that some of the documents Wizard attached to its Complaint  SH - xycontain "confidential commercial information regarding SNG's relationships with its dealer/sales agents"I7H (] yOl-ԍSNG Confidentiality Request at 2.I  S - xand that public dissemination of such information "could cause SNG substantial competitive injury."8$ (] {O- xԍId. at 4. SNG requests that the Commission remove all copies of Wizard's Complaint, including the allegedly  xconfidential exhibits, from the Commission's public files and allow SNG to refile in sealed envelopes any documents  {Of- xifor which it seeks continued confidential treatment. Id. SNG states that it will attempt to reach agreement with Wizard regarding the proper treatment of the documents at issue.  xSNG also seeks an order directing Wizard to adhere to the Commission's confidentiality procedures in  S -submitting any additional documents it may file in this proceeding.19 (] {Op-ԍId.1  S - IV. DISCUSSION ă  S0- ` `x17.` ` Before we address Wizard's substantive allegations, we must first determine whether it  xis an MVPD entitled to relief under Section 628 of the Communications Act and the Commission's  xprogram access rules. For the reasons discussed herein, we find that Wizard is neither an MVPD nor a  x0buying agent of an MVPD. Wizard does not purchase or sell programming, and it does not make"9,`(`(88"  xprogramming available for purchase by subscribers. Accordingly, Wizard does not have standing to bring  S-a program access complaint.:"(] {O@- xxԍSNG's failure to perform its contractual obligations is not per se a violation of the program access rules. To  xthe extent Wizard alleges that SNG's breach of contract constitutes unlawful price discrimination or other acts  xiprohibited by the program access rules, Wizard's allegations are moot in light of our finding that it lacks standing to bring a program access complaint.  S- ` Cx18.` ` An MVPD is defined as "an entity engaged in the business of making available for  Sb- xpurchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming."T;b(] yO -ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1000(e) (emphasis added). T The definition  S<- xincludes "television receiveonly satellite program distributor[s]."1<<B(] {O -ԍId.1 Wizard alleges that it is an MVPD because it is a TVRO distributor and markets programming packages to subscribers.  S- ` x19.` ` The program access rules are premised on the assumption that a complainant MVPD has  xpurchased or seeks to purchase programming from the defendant satellite programming vendor. For  St- x0example, the Program Access Report and Order clearly contemplates the sale of programming to  x=distributors when it addresses price discrimination, referring to programming vendors that "sell the same  S& - x\satellite programming service to various distributors . . . ."a=& (] {O-ԍProgram Access Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 3401.a In addition, a complainant alleging that a  xprogramming vendor has entered into an unlawful exclusive contract must present evidence that the  S - xcomplainant "has requested to purchase" the programming in question.>" f (] {O- xԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1003(c)(1)(xi)(C); see also 47 C.F.R.  76.1003(r)(2)(3) (defining statute of limitations with  x,reference to, among other things, the date that the defendant programming vendor "offers to sell programming" to  x,the complainant and the date that the complainant notifies a cable operator or programming vendor that it intends to file a complaint based on its "request to purchase or negotiate to purchase" programming). The Program Access Report and  S - x/Order also presumes that a complainant MVPD sells programming to subscribers. For example, the  x-Commission referred to "HSD distributors" as the type of MVPD that Congress intended to include within  Sb- xthe scope of the program access rules.d?bP (] {OR-ԍProgram Access Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 336566.d In explaining the term "HSD distributors," the Commission noted that:  `Xxmany different types of entities in the HSD or television receiveonly market purchase  S- satellite programming services from vendors and sell that programming to consumers,  while also providing various other services for HSD consumers. For the purposes of the  $program access regulations, we will use the term "HSD distributor" to refer to all such  entities, including those entities that are commonly known as HSD dealers or thirdparty  S$-program packagers.O@$(] {O%-ԍId. at 3366 n.7 (emphasis added).O  " t@,`(`(88C"Ԍ S- ` x20.` ` Wizard does not purchase programming from SNG, and it does not sell programming to  S- x[consumers.lAZ(] yO@- x<ԍWe note that the federal court adjudicating Wizard's breach of contract claim reached the same conclusion,  xstating that "Wizard does not purchase and resell programming and does not itself have contracts with programmers."  {O-District Court Order, slip op. at 2.l Rather, Wizard is a massmarketer. It advertises and markets programming that SNG sells  xto consumers under Wizard's name. SNG, not Wizard, packages and establishes the retail price of the  S- x=programming Wizard markets.OB(] yO-ԍComplaint at 2, 4; SNG Answer at 1617.O Wizard does not receive payment directly from subscribers but instead  S`- x receives commissions for sales of programming packaged under its name.C"`z(] yOz - xYԍComplaint at 1718, 24; SNG Answer at 78. In fact, since it renegotiated its agreement with SNG in February,  xh1996, Wizard apparently has had no direct contact with subscribers at all. Prior to that time, Wizard operated a call  xcenter where it received calls from potential subscribers. Complaint at 10. Wizard closed the call center as a result  {O -of the February, 1996 negotiations. Id. at 1819. Wizard alleges that SNG  S8- xagreed to pay the commission even before a subscriber pays the first invoice from SNG.D8d (] yO<- xYԍComplaint at 18. Wizard cites SNG's failure to pay commissions to Wizard before SNG receives payment from  {O-subscribers as an example of SNG's allegedly unlawful conduct. Id. at 24. If Wizard were  xitself purchasing programming from another entity and selling the programming to subscribers, then at a  xminimum, Wizard would determine the retail price for the programming packages, and it would not expect to receive revenue from the sale of such programming unless and until a subscriber paid for it.  Sp- ` x21.` ` Even without reference to the question of whether Wizard purchases and sells  SH - xprogramming, it is clear that Wizard is not "making [programming] available" to subscribers.\EH (] {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.1000(e) (definition of MVPD).\ The  xprogramming Wizard markets is acquired by SNG from programming vendors, and SNG assembles the  S - x0various programming packages.pF P (] yO-ԍComplaint at 2; SNG Answer at 4 n.8 & Exh. A ("Parker Decl.") at 2, 5. p Wizard is required to state in its advertising that Wizardbrand  S - x{programming is provided by SNG.PG (] yOP-ԍSNG Answer at 7 n.7 & Parker Decl. at 3.P The advertising materials Wizard submitted as exhibits to its  S - xComplaint include such a statement.CH p(] {O-ԍSee Complaint Exh. 2.C When a potential subscriber decides to purchase a programming  xjpackage marketed under Wizard's name, the new subscriber calls a telephone number that is answered by  SX- x[SNG operators.NIX(] yO!-ԍSNG Answer at 78 & Parker Decl. at 3.N SNG employees close all sales of programming packages marketed by Wizard, initiate  x=service to the customer, and handle billing and other customer service needs of subscribers that purchase  S- xWizardbrand programming.1J(] {O:%-ԍId.1 Subscribers pay SNG, and not Wizard, for programming marketed to them  xby Wizard. It is SNG, therefore, and not Wizard, that makes the programming available to subscribers. Based on the foregoing facts, we conclude that Wizard is not an MVPD." $J,`(`(88 "Ԍ S- ` Pԙx22.` ` We also find that Wizard is not an "agent" of SNG or any other entity as that term is used  xin the definition of MVPD under the Communications Act and the Commission's program access rules.  xThe term "agent," or "buying group," refers to "an entity representing the interests of more than one entity  xdistributing multichannel video programming" that assumes financial liability for programming contracts  xand agrees to uniform billing and contract provisions and reasonable technical quality standards for the  S8- xentities represented.BK8(] yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1000(c).B Wizard has not alleged that it performs any of the above functions on behalf of  x[SNG or other entities that distribute multichannel video programming, and the record does not otherwise indicate that Wizard performs such functions.  S- ` $x23.` ` Because Wizard does not have standing to bring a program access complaint under the  xCommunications Act or the Commission's rules, we do not address Wizard's substantive claims of  xdiscrimination and unfair or deceptive practices by SNG, or Wizard's claim that TCI has an attributable  x.interest in SNG and unduly influenced SNG with respect to SNG's allegedly unlawful actions. We need  xynot reach these issues, based on our finding that Wizard is not an MVPD entitled to protection under the  xMprogram access rules. For the same reason, we do not address Wizard's request that the Commission  xKdirect the parties to submit discovery proposals and briefs or its request that the Commission allow Wizard  S -to file additional evidence.(L" X(] yOx- xԍWe note, however, that had Wizard simply appended the additional evidence to its Reply, Commission approval  xof its request to file the additional evidence would not have been necessary, assuming the evidence did not raise new  xissues. Based on Wizard's description of the evidence in its Reply, we conclude that it would have no bearing on  {O-our finding that Wizard lacks standing to bring a program access complaint. See Reply at 4. (  S0- ` x24. ` ` We grant SNG's motion to supplement its Answer and the record to include the District  S - xCourt Order. Section 76.1003(f) of the Commission's rules states that motions or other additional  S- xpleadings generally will not be accepted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.BMB(] yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1003(f).B Explaining  S- xthis rule in the Program Access Report and Order, the Commission stated that "[m]otions to dismiss,  xmotions for summary judgment, or any additional pleadings will not be considered except in extraordinary  Sn- xcircumstances or unless requested by the staff."iNn(] {O-ԍProgram Access Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. at 3419 n.228. i The purpose of the rule is to avoid delay and allow the  SF- xCommission to resolve program access complaints in an expeditious manner.1OFd (] {OJ-ԍId.1 We do not find that  xextraordinary circumstances justify Commission acceptance of SNG's motion. We note, however, that  S- xSNG could not have filed the District Court Order with its Answer because the District Court had not yet  S- x/issued the order. After the District Court Order was issued, SNG promptly filed its motion and the  S- xDistrict Court Order for inclusion in the record in this proceeding.P (] {O@$- xԍThe District Court Order was issued on October 14, 1997. SNG filed its motion and the Order one week later, on October 21, 1997. The District Court Order is the type  xof information Staff might have asked the parties to submit had Staff been aware of its issuance, and its  x]inclusion in the record of this proceeding will not delay the proceeding or prejudice any party. In  xaddition, the motion is unopposed. For these reasons, we find good cause to waive Section 76.1003(f)"4 P P,`(`(88"  S- x!to accept SNG's motion to supplement and include the District Court Order in the record of this proceeding.  S- ` x25.` ` We deny the SNG Confidentiality Request. SNG invokes Section 76.1003(h) of the  xCommission's rules in seeking confidential treatment of documents that Wizard provided to the  xCommission as attachments to its complaint. Section 76.1003(h) allows a party to designate as  x.confidential, subject to challenge, "materials generated or provided by [the] party in connection with the  xprecomplaint notification procedure required under  76.1003(a) and in the course adjudicating a program  x\access complaint under this provision" if the party seeking protection "believes in good faith that the  xmaterials fall within an exemption to disclosure contained in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5  Sr- xU.S.C. [] 552(b)."EQr(] yO -ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.1003(h)(1).E SNG has not alleged that it generated or provided the documents in the course of  SJ - xthe precomplaint notification procedure.R J X(] yOB - xԍSNG could not have generated the materials in the course of adjudicating the complaint because the materials  xwere attached to the complaint and therefore already had been generated by SNG. Wizard initiated the precomplaint  xnotification procedure on April 9, 1997, when it sent separate notices of intent to file a program access complaint to SNG and TCI. In fact, it is evident from the dates on the documents in  xquestion that at least some of them were generated and provided to Wizard prior to the precomplaint  S - x[notification. In addition, some of the materials in question were generated by Wizard.S @(] yO- xKԍThese include Wizard's advertising brochure, Complaint Exh. 2, and the Notice of Intent sent by Wizard to SNG, Complaint Exh. 5. SNG, therefore,  xis not entitled to confidential treatment of the materials in question. We also decline to direct Wizard to  xuse our confidentiality procedures if it files additional documents in this proceeding. SNG has not shown that further harmful disclosure is likely.  S2- V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S- ` x26.` ` For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that the complaint of Wizard  xmProgramming, Inc., against Superstar/Netlink Group, L.L.C., and Telecommunications, Inc., IS DISMISSED.  SB- ` x27.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave To Supplement filed by Superstar/Netlink Group, L.L.C., IS GRANTED. " S,`(`(88"  S- ` #x28.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Confidential Treatment of Documents and Information of Superstar/Netlink Group, L.L.C., IS DENIED.  S- ` _x29.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's  S`-rules.=T`(] yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  0.321.= X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: