********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

In re:                               )
                                     )
Complaint of Martin W. Hoffman, Esq.,)
Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of)   CSR-5191-M
Astroline Communications L.P., licensee of)
Station WHCT-TV against Comcast      )     
Cablevision of Groton, Inc.          )
                                     )
Request for Carriage                 )
                                     

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  May 6, 1998                                                     Released:  May 11, 1998  

By the Chief, Consumer Protection & Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau:

                               INTRODUCTION

1.      Martin W. Hoffman, Esq., Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of Astroline Communications L.P.,
licensee of television station WHCT-TV (Petitioner), Hartford, Connecticut, has filed a must-carry
complaint with the Commission, pursuant to  76.61 of the Commission's Rules, claiming that, despite
its requests, Comcast Cablevision of Groton, Inc. (Comcast), operator of cable television system serving
Groton, Connecticut, has refused to carry WHCT-TV, even though both the station and the Groton system
are located in the Hartford-New Haven, Connecticut area of dominant influence (or "ADI").  Comcast has
filed an opposition to this complaint to which WHCT-TV has replied.

                                BACKGROUND

2.      Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the
Commission it its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, commercial television broadcast stations are
entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market.  A
station's market for this purpose is its "area of dominant influence," or ADI, as defined by Arbitron
audience research organization.  

                           SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

3.      In support of his Complaint, Petitioner states that television station WHCT-TV is a full-power,
commercial television station licensed to Hartford, Connecticut and located within the Hartford ADI, as
is Comcast's cable television system serving the Hartford ADI.  In addition, Petitioner asserts that WHCT
has been able provide Comcast "with a signal strength in excess of the Commission's minimum
requirements" since October 3, 1997.  According to WHCT-TV, by letter dated March 7, 1997, it
informed Comcast that it was electing mandatory carriage over retransmission consent in the Groton
system.  Comcast did not respond within thirty days to WHCT-TV's notice.  WHCT, however, asserts that
it did not invoke its must-carry rights until October 3, 1997, when it informed Comcast that WHCT was
providing a good quality signal.  The station asserts that it filed the instant "Complaint" within sixty days
of Comcast's failure to respond.to the station's October 3, 1997 must-carry request.

4.      In its opposition, Comcast maintains that the WHCT-TV's "Complaint" was not filed within sixty
days of Comcast's failure to respond to the station's initial must-carry request on March 7, 1997, and that
the instant "Complaint" must be dismissed, pursuant to  76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Rules.  Comcast asserts
that WHCT-TV first invoked its mandatory carriage rights on the headend located at Groton on March 7,
1997.  Comcast points out that on April 4, 1997, the station presented a second must-carry request to the
cable operator.  Comcast notes that it did not respond to either carriage request within the established
thirty-day period.  Comcast explains that its lack of response to both must-carry requests constituted an
effective denial for carriage and started the sixty-day period in which to file a timely "Complaint" with
the Commission.  Comcast asserts that on May 5, 1997, it reiterated, in writing, its refusal to carry WHCT
on the Groton system.   Comcast asserts that even if its failure to respond to WHCT's March 7 and
April  4, 1997 letters did not constitute "an effective denial of carriage, the May 5 letter certainly served
that purpose,"  

5.      Petitioner contends, in reply, that a close analysis of its March 7, 1997 and April 4, 1997 letters
shows that neither letter was intended as a formal request for mandatory carriage.  Rather, the sole
purpose of the letters was to notify Comcast that the station was back on the air and that it had elected
must-carry rights over retransmission consent.  WHCT emphasizes that the March 7, 1997 letter could not
have been a must-carriage request because no demand for carriage is made anywhere in the letter. 
According to Petitioner, the April 4, 1997 letter "had an informational purpose - to alert cable operators
who might have been postponing carriage pending Supreme Court review of the must-carry rules that the
court had upheld the requirement's constitutionality."   Petitioner claims that neither "letter was sufficient
to trigger the complaint process." Petitioner contends that even if either letter "had constituted a formal
must-carry request, Comcast's May 5, 1997 letter eliminated any basis on which WHCT could support a
must carry complaint."  WHCT argues that the letter "left the door open for a future carriage request by
inviting WHCT to improve its signal," and as a result, it "would have been pointless to the Station to file
a must-carry complaint with the Commission when both parties agreed that the signal received at the
system's principal headend at the time was inadequate."  Therefore, WHCT contends, it could not exercise
its right to demand mandatory carriage until it corrected the signal deficiencies Comcast noted in the May
5, 1997 letter.  WHCT maintains that the letter, rather than a denial, was the beginning of "a chain of
events that resulted in the Station's taking the necessary steps to improve its signal and thus to become
fully eligible to request and receive carriage on the system.  There was no deadline for the Station to
complete these steps."   Finally, Petitioner asserts that the 60-day period to file a must-carry complaint
was triggered by Comcast's lack of response to WHCT's October 3, 1997 request, not before.

                          DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

6.      As the Bureau previously explained in its decision in Friendly Bible Church, Inc., and in two
recent Memorandum Opinion and Orders, the Commission's rules concerning its must-carry complaint
procedure are quite clear:  "No must-carry complaint filed pursuant to  76.61 will be accepted by the
Commission if filed more than sixty (60) days after the ... denial by a cable television system operator
of a request for carriage ..."  The Commission explained that adoption of a time limit both for must-carry
and channel positioning complaints was appropriate, because it balanced the interests of broadcast stations
in asserting their carriage rights, with the interests of cable systems in having certainty in their channel
and carriage obligations to broadcasters, together with the interests of subscribers in having minimal
viewing disruption and certainty of service.  The Commission added that if within thirty days of the
station's initial request for carriage or for channel position, the cable operator either denied the request
or did not respond to it, the broadcast station then only had sixty days to file a complaint with the
Commission.

7.      According to  76.55(e) of the Commission's rules, the market of commercial television broadcast
stations, such as WHCT, is defined as its ADI.  A commercial station is entitled to request carriage on
any cable system operating in the same ADI.  47 C.F.R.  76.55(c).  Both WHCT-TV and Comcast are
located in the same ADI.  However, Comcast maintains that WHCT failed to file a complaint, as required
by Commission rules, within sixty days after Comcast either ignored or denied the station's initial letter
dated March 7 and subsequent letter of April 4, 1997, both of which requested mandatory carriage, as
required under the Commission's rules.  Comcast claims that, after the specified thirty-day response
period, WHCT was bound to file a complaint within sixty days with the Commission, which would have
been either by June 6, 1997 (after the first letter) or by July 4, 1997 (after the second letter), which it did
not do.  Although Comcast did not add the signal and did not respond to WHCT-TV's March 7, 1997
letter, WHCT-TV did not file its complaint with the Commission until December 29, 1997, more than six
months later.  

8.      We find that contrary to WHCT-TV's characterization, the March 7, 1997 letter was a demand
for carriage.  Even WHCT-TV, in its April 4, 1997 letter, referred to the March 7, 1997 letter as the letter
where it "invoked its statutory right to must-carry."  The fact that WHCT also sent out later requests for
carriage does not toll the Commission's filing period, nor has the station sufficient grounds to waive 
76.7 of the Rules for other reasons.  Because WHCT-TV's complaint was not filed within sixty days of
Comcast's failure to respond to its original carriage request of March 7, 1997, its Complaint must be
dismissed, pursuant to  76.7(c)(4)(iii)(B) of the Commission's rules.
                                ORDERING CLAUSES

 9.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the complaint for carriage (CSR-5191-M), filed
December  29, 1997, by Martin W. Hoffman, Esq., Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of Astroline
Communications L.P., Licensee of Station WHCT-TV in Hartford, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED as
untimely filed.

10.     This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's rules.

        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



        Gary M. Laden
        Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division
        Cable Services Bureau