******************************************************** 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 WGBO License Partnership, ) CSR-5240-M G.P. against TCI Chicago Cable and ) TCI Cable ) ) Channel Positioning Complaint ) ) Petition for Order to Show Cause ) CSC-378 filed by WGBO License Partnership, ) G.P. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 13, 1998 Released: July 20, 1998 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. WGBO License Partnership, G.P., licensee of Television Broadcast Station WGBO (Channel 66), Joliet, Illinois, has filed a complaint against TCI Chicago Cable and TCI Cable (collectively "TCI") for TCI's intention to reposition WGBO on their respective Chicago and Harvey, Ohio cable systems. Simultaneously with this filing, WGBO filed a Petition for Order to Show Cause as to why TCI should not be directed to cease and desist its imminent violation of 76.58 of the Commission's Rules. No opposition has been received with regard to the must carry complaint, but a response was filed with regard to the show cause petition on behalf of TCI. No reply has been received from WGBO. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 2. In support of its complaint, WGBO states that TCI announced its intention to reposition its channel on the Chicago and Harvey cable systems effective May 1 and May 5, 1998, respectively. WGBO argues that, if acted upon, TCI will violate the Cable Act and the Commission's Rules by failing to obtain the station's consent to the proposed repositioning, failing to provide the systems' subscribers with the required 30-day notice of the repositioning, and repositioning the station during the May ratings "sweeps." WGBO maintains that repositioning it during a sweeps period could be devastating and substantially impact its revenues during the next quarter. WGBO argues that TCI can raise no legitimate defense for its proposed repositioning. The only reason given, states WGBO, is so that TCI can introduce "Channel Neighborhoods," as a marketing strategy undertaken solely to advance TCI's private business goals. 3. In support of its show cause petition, WGBO states that during the week of April 13, 1998, employees of WGBO, who are also subscribers to TCI's Chicago system, received notification in the mail that WGBO would be repositioned from channel 26 to channel 13 effective May 1, 1998. WGBO states that it received no notification from TCI regarding this move, as required by 76.58(a) of the rules. Further, on April 9, 1998, WGBO indicates that, pursuant to routine practice, it requested an updated channel line-up card for TCI's Harvey system. WGBO states that upon receiving this line-up card, it discovered that TCI was repositioning its signal on that system as of May 5, 1998. Again, WGBO states that it received no notification of this move. WGBO points out that pursuant to 614(b)(9) of the 1992 Cable Act and 76.58(a) of the Commission's Rules, a cable operator is required to provide a station with 30 days notice before either terminating or repositioning the station. Section 76.58(a) also requires a 30-day notification to subscribers and forbids a cable operator from deleting or repositioning a station during a sweeps period. WGBO argues that TCI's noncompliance with its notification obligations herein is in flagrant violation of Section 614(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 76.58(a) of the Commission's Rules. WGBO therefore requests the Commission order TCI to show cause why it should not cease and desist from violation of the Rules and to order it to continue to carry WGBO on its current channels on the Chicago and Harvey systems until such compliance. 4. In a response to the petition for show cause, TCI states that it disagrees with certain of the arguments raised by WGBO and disputes that the announced changes would harm WGBO. However, TCI indicates that it will accede to WGBO's request and postpone the scheduled repositioning of WGBO until on or about June 2, 1998. TCI argues that since this date is more than thirty days from the date of its reply herein, WGBO's show cause petition is now moot. DISCUSSION 5. We acknowledge TCI's postponement of its proposed repositioning of WGBO on its Chicago and Harvey systems and find that the allegations raised by WGBO both in its must carry complaint and its petition for order to show cause are no longer relevant. Therefore, both of these petitions will be dismissed. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the must carry complaint filed by WGBO License Partnership, G.P. IS DISMISSED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Petition for Order to Show Cause filed by WGBO License Partnership, G.P. IS DISMISSED. 8. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gary M. Laden, Chief Consumer Protection and Competition Division Cable Services Bureau