WPC9 2BJZ Courier3|a>^x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si Room 907HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\{$Q_X@2'6<FK Z3|aTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2Kh vp)k"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""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\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%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&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7Gy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;PH7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPI2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P J2e=5,&e4  pG;&K7nC:,,`(`(88&"Ԍ S-  5.xPetitioner contends, in reply, that a close analysis of its March 7, 1997 and April 4, 1997 letters  xshows that neither letter was intended as a formal request for mandatory carriage. Rather, the sole purpose  xof the letters was to notify Comcast that the station was back on the air and that it had elected mustcarry  xrights over retransmission consent. WHCT emphasizes that the March7, 1997 letter could not have been  xa mustcarriage request because no demand for carriage is made anywhere in the letter. According to  xPetitioner, the April 4, 1997 letter "had an informational purpose to alert cable operators who might have  xbeen postponing carriage pending Supreme Court review of the mustcarry rules that the court had upheld  S- xthe requirement's constitutionality."4E yOP-ԍReply, at 2.4 Petitioner claims that neither "letter was sufficient to trigger the  S- xcomplaint process."1XE {O -ԍId.1 Petitioner contends that even if either letter "had constituted a formal mustcarry  xrequest, Comcast's May 5, 1997 letter eliminated any basis on which WHCT could support a must carry  Sp- xzcomplaint." pE {O - xԍId. WHCT argues that "[t]he letter in question [only] established that WHCT was not qualified for mandatory carriage at that time because it failed to provide an adequate signal at the Groton system's headend."  WHCT argues that the letter "left the door open for a future carriage request by inviting  xjWHCT to improve its signal," and as a result, it "would have been pointless to the Station to file a must xcarry complaint with the Commission when both parties agreed that the signal received at the system's  S - xprincipal headend at the time was inadequate."] Z DE {O- xԍId.at 3. WHCT cites Complaint of Telecinco, Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of Puerto Rico, 12 FCC Rcd 17493 (1997)  xto support its argument that "a letter notifying a station of signal quality problems at the cable headend is not a denial of a station's carriage request."] Therefore, WHCT contends, it could not exercise its right  xyto demand mandatory carriage until it corrected the signal deficiencies Comcast noted in the May 5, 1997  x.letter. WHCT maintains that the letter, rather than a denial, was the beginning of "a chain of events that  xLresulted in the Station's taking the necessary steps to improve its signal and thus to become fully eligible  xto request and receive carriage on the system. There was no deadline for the Station to complete these  S0- xsteps."8 0f E {O6-ԍId., at 6.8 Finally, Petitioner asserts that the 60day period to file a mustcarry complaint was triggered by Comcast's lack of response to WHCT's October 3, 1997 request, not before.  S- DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ă  Sh-  O6.xAs the Bureau previously explained in its decision in Friendly Bible Church, Inc.,: h E yO -ԍ9 FCC Rcd at 7907.: and in two  SB- x[recent Memorandum Opinion and Orders,7 B E yOj"-ԍSee Footnote 3.7 the Commission's rules concerning its mustcarry complaint  xprocedure are quite clear: "No mustcarry complaint filed pursuant to  76.61 will be accepted by the  xCommission if filed more than sixty (60) days after the ... denial by a cable television system operator  S- xof a request for carriage ..."G E yO&-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.7(C)(4)(iii).G The Commission explained that adoption of a time limit both for mustcarry  xand channel positioning complaints was appropriate, because it balanced the interests of broadcast stations" ,`(`(88"  xin asserting their carriage rights, with the interests of cable systems in having certainty in their channel  xand carriage obligations to broadcasters, together with the interests of subscribers in having minimal  x/viewing disruption and certainty of service. The Commission added that if within thirty days of the  xstation's initial request for carriage or for channel position, the cable operator either denied the request  xor did not respond to it, the broadcast station then only had sixty days to file a complaint with the  S8-Commission.=8E yO-ԍ11 FCC Rcd. at 17118.=  S-  ?7.xAccording to  76.55(e) of the Commission's rules, the market of commercial television broadcast  xstations, such as WHCT, is defined as its ADI. A commercial station is entitled to request carriage on  xany cable system operating in the same ADI. 47 C.F.R.  76.55(c). Both WHCTTV and Comcast are  xlocated in the same ADI. However, Comcast maintains that WHCT failed to file a complaint, as required  xby Commission rules, within sixty days after Comcast either ignored or denied the station's initial letter  xdated March 7 and subsequent letter of April 4, 1997, both of which requested mandatory carriage, as  S - xrequired under the Commission's rules.D XE yO-ԍSee  76.7(c)(4)(iii)(B).D Comcast claims that, after the specified thirtyday response  xperiod, WHCT was bound to file a complaint within sixty days with the Commission, which would have  xbeen either by June 6, 1997 (after the first letter) or by July 4, 1997 (after the second letter), which it did  xnot do. Although Comcast did not add the signal and did not respond to WHCTTV's March 7, 1997  xletter, WHCTTV did not file its complaint with the Commission until December 29, 1997, more than six months later.  S-  8.xWe find that contrary to WHCTTV's characterization, the March 7, 1997 letter was a demand  xfor carriage. Even WHCTTV, in its April 4, 1997 letter, referred to the March 7, 1997 letter as the letter  S- xwhere it "invoked its statutory right to mustcarry.">E yO-ԍOpposition, Exhibit 3.> The fact that WHCT also sent out later requests for  Sh- xcarriage does not toll the Commission's filing period,P\hxE {O- xJԍSee Complaint of Horizon Broadcasting Corporation against Horizon Cable Limited Partnership, DA 972226  {OJ- xJ(released October 21, 1997); Complaint of United Broadcast Group II, Inc. against Buford Television, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 8446, 8447 (1997).P nor has the station sufficient grounds to waive   x76.7 of the Rules for other reasons. Because WHCTTV's complaint was not filed within sixty days of  x 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. ",`(`(88"  S-1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S-   9.xAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED , that the complaint for carriage (CSR5191M), filed  xDecember29, 1997, by Martin W. Hoffman, Esq., Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of Astroline  S`- xCommunications L.P., Licensee of Station WHCTTV in Hartford, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED as untimely filed.  S- 10.xThis action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's rules. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGary M. Laden x` `  hhChief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division x` `  hhCable Services Bureau