WPCH 2BJZ Courier3|a:Wx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si Room 907HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%CX@2'6KF Z<3|a"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\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;u&P#"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\"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2mKA KKK""i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.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~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\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&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(;TT77a%>7\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7KlBBn7xy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;Py2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&Pz2e=5,&e4  pG;&{7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP|P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP}H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\~0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X\Q9% ,%:@J9*f9 xr G;JX&b7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP S- X    S-  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 981654 ă  yxdddy P3 #&a\  P6G;u&P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S`-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP##&a\  P6G;u&P#In re:R) R)  S-Complaint of Whitehead Media of R)hppCSR5236M Georgia, Inc. against MediaOne, Inc.R) R) Request for CarriageR)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  S -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:%- xResearch's designated market areas ("DMAs") for mustcarry/retransmission consent elections. See Definition of  xiMarkets for Purposes of the Cable Television Mandatory Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, Report and  {O&- xOrder and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CS Docket No. 95178, 11 FCC Rcd 6201 (1996) ("Market  {O'- xModification Report and Order"). In its Market Modification Report and Order, the Commission decided to use  {Od(- xZArbitron's 19911992 Television ADI Market Guide market designations for the 1996 election and postpone the  xswitch to Nielsen's DMAs until the mustcarry/retransmission consent election that is to take place on October 1,".),**)"  {O- x1999. The Commission also issued a Further Notice in its Market Modification Report and Order to solicit  xI additional information and provide parties an opportunity to further consider issues relating to the transition to market designations based on Nielsen's DMAs.",**88>"Ԍ S- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ă  S-  3. xIn support of its complaint, WNGMTV initially points to relevant background information. It  xstates that it filed an earlier complaint against MediaOne (CSR4990M) which was denied due to the fact  S`- xjthat WNGMTV was considered to be the same affiliate (inTV) as WPXATV,9`2 yO-ԍFormerly WTLKTV.9 a station already carried  xjby the system. WNGMTV indicates that the Commission's action in 4990M was considered in a joint  xdecision with that of a request by MediaOne for modify its market to exclude WNGMTV from must  S- xcarry status on its system.Zz2 {O -ԍSee MediaOne, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 12155 (1997).Z The Commission also denied MediaOne's request for exclusion in this  xjinstance, and WNGMTV states that MediaOne subsequently requested a partial reconsideration of that  S- x<decision. 2 {OF- xԍThe partial reconsideration filed in MediaOne, supra, (CSR5012A) is currently pending and will be processed separately. In a response to that partial reconsideration, WNGMTV states that it pointed out that effective  Sr- xSeptember 1, 1997, it had terminated its affiliation with inTV. Moreover, WNGMTV continues, in a  SL - xsubsequent December 22, 1997 decision in CSR5075M,L f 2 {OR- xJԍSee Whitehead Media of Georgia, Inc. against Bellsouth Interactive Media Services, Inc., DA 972682 (released December 24, 1997). the Commission granted WNGMTV's carriage  xLcomplaint against Bellsouth Interactive Media Services, Inc., by finding that Bellsouth had not produced  xenough evidence to conclude that WNGMTV was affiliated with the same network as WPXATV.  xWNGMTV states that based upon the evidence it presented in its rebuttal to MediaOne partial  x.reconsideration and the Commission's action in CSR5075M, it again requested carriage on MediaOne's  x[cable systems. WNGMTV indicates that MediaOne's March 23, 1998 response to this request refused  S\- xjcarriage, citing the Commission's more recent decision in CSR5143M\ 2 {O- x;ԍSee Complaint of Paxson Atlanta License, Inc., against Robin Media Group, Inc., dba InterMedia, 13 FCC Rcd 4649 (1998). which ruled that WPXATV and WNGMTV are affiliates of the same network.  S-  4. xWNGMTV argues that the instant complaint was timely filed within sixty days of MediaOne's  xMarch 23rd refusal of carriage. WNGMTV maintains that it meets the definition of a local commercial  xtelevision station and is eligible for must carry status both WNGMTV and MediaOne's cable systems  xare all located in the same ADI; it provides a good quality signal to MediaOne's principal headends; and  x=no copyright liability will be incurred through its carriage. WNGMTV contends that, effective April 5,  S- x1998, it is now affiliated with USA Networks and has switched to a music video format,z 2 yO$-ԍThe majority of such programming is supplied by the music video service "The Box."z which will be  xsupplemented by public affairs and children's television programming. WNGMTV contends that due to  xthe its change in affiliation the Commission's previous decisions in CSR4990M and CSR5143M are moot and it is now eligible for carriage on MediaOne's cable systems herein." ,`(`(88"Ԍ S-  ԙ5. xIn opposition, MediaOne states that WNGMTV's entitlement to carriage on its Atlanta metro area  x.cable systems during the 19971999 must carry election period was resolved by the Commission's prior  x!decision in CSR4990M. It argues, therefore, that WNGMTV's current complaint is untimely,  S- xrepetitious, and barred by Commission's rules in that WNGMTV's instant complaint is "seeking the same  Sb- xcarriage relief for the same WNGM station on the same MediaOne cable systems during the same must  S<- xxcarry election period (emphasis supplied)." MediaOne points out that the rules adopted by the Commission  S- xin its Report and Order in MM Docket 92259, supra, clearly establish a 60 day time limit after denial  S- x[of carriage in which television broadcast stations may file a must carry complaint.F 2 yOX-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.7(c)(4)(iii).F MediaOne contends  xthat the triggering event in this situation was not the March 23, 1998 refusal of carriage claimed by  xWNGMTV, but rather the February 2, 1997 denial of WNGMTV's original January 3, 1997 demand for  Sx- xcarriage during the current 19971999 election period.7 xX2 yOp -ԍSee CSR4990M.7 Therefore, it argues, WNGMTV's instant  xcomplaint is more than one year and 60 days overdue. Moreover, MediaOne states that nowhere in  x76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the rules does it say that a complaint may be filed within 60 days of either "the most  xrecent carriage demand the station has made" or "after a final Commission decision which denied an  xearlier station carriage complaint." In addition, MediaOne points out that the Commission's decision in  S - xFriendly Bible Church, Inc.,@ 2 yO8-ԍ11 FCC Rcd 17115 (1996).@ which dismissed a station's carriage complaint as untimely, the Commission  xstated that "We note that KLXVTV is not permanently foreclosed from perfecting its rights. Pursuant  xyto 76.64(f)(2) of the Commission's Rules, KLXVTV will have an opportunity again to choose between  xmustcarry and retransmission consent by October 1, 1996, and to inform Viacom of this election. Should  S- xKLXVTV opt for mustcarry at this election, it may again demand carriage upon Viacom's system  S- x(emphasis supplied)."; x2 yO-ԍId. at 17120 n. 14.; MediaOne argues that, as a result of this decision, the Commission made it clear  xlthat a station is barred from making a subsequent carriage demand for the duration of a must carry  x>election period once it has failed, for whatever reason, to perfect its carriage rights in a prior demand.  x=MediaOne states that to allow multiple, repetitious demands for carriage or attempts to "restart" a filing  xMclock after receiving a denial of carriage would not only undermine the rule but destroy any chance of  xachieving the underlying policy of the rule finality and certainty in the Commission's must carry dispute  S- xresolution process.2 {O- xiԍSee, e.g., Horizon Broadcasting Corp., 12 FCC Rcd 17360 (1997), and Fant Broadcasting Co. of Nebraska,  {On-Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8340 (1995). MediaOne maintains that WNGMTV had the opportunity to prosecute its claim to  xcarriage by seeking reconsideration of the Bureau's decision in CSR4990M but failed to do so.  xMediaOne argues that to allow WNGMTV to reopen and relitigate the same carriage question now totally  S- x=undermines the finality of the Bureau's decision in MediaOne, supra, would seriously harm the interests  S^- xof MediaOne's subscribers,^d 2 yOb$- xԍMediaOne states that in order to accommodate WNGMTV it would be required to drop one of the few remaining services it has the discretion to delete; services which are highly valued by its subscribers. and, potentially, could adversely affect the interests of other cable operators and their subscribers throughout the country. " ,`(`(88z"Ԍ S-  l6. xIn any event, MediaOne maintains that WNGMTV's claims with regard to programming changes  xjcannot be taken at face value, particularly if one looks at the chronology. Initially, MediaOne states that  S- xjin its opposition to the partial reconsideration of the decision in MediaOne, supra, WNGMTV claimed,  S- xonly 11 days after the release of the MediaOne order, that it had ceased airing Paxson's inTV  Sd- xprogramming in favor of an allegedly separate Paxsonowned network, Paxnet.|\d2 yO- x;ԍMediaOne states that there was a similar occurrence regarding two duplicative Paxson stations in the Cleveland  {O- xADI after the release of a decision denying the relevant must carry complaints. See Cablevision of Cleveland, L.P.  {O^-and V Cable, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 15173 (1997).| MediaOne argues that  S<- xwhile WNGMTV's apparent response to the MediaOne decision was to create an appearance that its  xduplicative station was allegedly changing its programming, an act which took place well before the  xdeadline for filing a reconsideration, WNGMTV did not take advantage of the reconsideration process  xbut instead voluntarily elected to allow the Bureau's decision to become final and binding. Despite  S- xWNGMTV's claims about its change to "Paxnet programming," both in the MediaOne case and numerous  Sx- xother Commission proceedings,x2 {O- xԍSee, e.g., Paxson Atlanta License, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 4341 (1998), and Complaint of Paxson Atlanta License,  {M-Inc. against Robin Media Group, Inc. dba InterMedia, supra. MediaOne points out that there was no public record of the existence  SP - xof the alleged "Paxnet" entity at any time prior to the MediaOne decision, or for several months thereafter.  S* - xMoreover, MediaOne states that since this alleged change was only made after the MediaOne decision was  S - xyreleased, it is its opinion that the alleged changes were a postMediaOne concoction devised by WNGM S - xyTV for the sole purpose of attempting to circumvent the Bureau's ruling. F2 yO- xԍAnd in consequence, impact on any other decisions in the Atlanta, Cleveland, Boston or other ADIs where Paxson owns or controls more than one station. Indeed, MediaOne points out  x[that later press reports indicating that Paxson was planning to start a new network called "Paxnet" in the  xlatter part of 1998 which would offer syndicated programming, precludes the fact that the "Paxnet"  Sf- xreferred to by WNGMTV shortly after the MediaOne decision could be the socalled programlength  x[commercial network it was claimed to be or the current source of the supposedly different programming.  xEven more confusing, states MediaOne, are later claims by WNGMTV that the oncenamed, allegedly  xseparate "Paxnet" was in actuality to be called "Infomall," a name that originally was supposed to refer  S- xzonly to inTV.M2 yO-ԍi.e. "Infomall" a/k/a "INTV" network.M MediaOne states that while this Paxson shell game succeeded in eliciting a grant from  S- x[the Bureau in WNGMTV's complaint against Bellsouth (CSR5075M),. 2 yOp- x[ԍMediaOne feels that this was possible only because the matter was not vigorously contested by the cable operator in the case. the Bureau flatly rejected the  x\same approach by WNGMTV in its complaint against Robin Media (CSR5143M) where program  xschedules for WNGMTV and WPXATV reflected far more than 15 hours per week of duplicated  S*-programming.j* 2 yOP#-ԍIn point of fact, a minimum of 71 hours of duplicated programming.j  S-  7. xMediaOne states further that WNGMTV's current claims that its programming will now be  xMsupplied by "The Box" are equally unpersuasive. For instance, MediaOne points out that this latest  xLchange, effective April 5, 1998, occurred only 5 days before WNGMTV filed the instant complaint and  xkwell after WNGMTV made its January 1998 and February 1998 carriage demands of MediaOne and"b,`(`(88"  xMediaOne's subsequent March 23rd refusal of carriage. MediaOne argues that since the Bureau penetrated  xand rejected WNGMTV's false "Paxnet" claims in the decision in CSR5143M, WNGMTV was forced  xto institute another purported change in order to advance its instant complaint on an entirely different  xtheory. MediaOne states that a review of the only program schedules supplied by WNGMTV, however,  xyreflect at least 7 hours per day of unidentified generic "shop at home" programlength commercials which  xNappear to be duplicative of current WPXATV Paxsonsupplied programlength commercials and  xadditional children's programming which clearly duplicates WPXATV programming. From the evidence,  xLtherefore, MediaOne argues that it appears that WNGMTV continues to air approximately 60 hours of  xprogramming per week that is duplicative of the programming of WPXATV and WNGMTV has offered no proof to the contrary.  SH -  !8. xFinally, MediaOne argues that WNGMTV's complaint is meritless for other reasons as well: a)  x<WNGMTV failed to present evidence that would support its claim to carriage; b) WNGMTV's complaint  xkwas premised on an entirely different set of facts than those set forth in its carriage demands; c) since  xWNGMTV and other Paxson stations have established a "track record" of false and misleading claims,  x>verification of their claims should be made through a formal administrative hearing, with full rights of  xdiscovery and crossexamination; and d) WNGMTV seeks to force MediaOne to retransmit a national  xcable network programming service the station will ostensibly be carrying in the future after MediaOne  xMhas already declined to carry this network after discussions with the purveyor of this service despite substantial monetary incentives.  S-  l9. xIn reply, WNGMTV argues that despite MediaOne's assertions, the Commission could not have  xLintended to bar a television station from carriage under the Commission's Rules and the Communications  xAct of 1934, as amended, for an entire must carry election period after it cured the original carriage  xdeficiency. WNGMTV states that, given the Bureau's finding in CSR5143M, it concluded that a change  x.in format would be necessary in order to eliminate the duplicated program and network affiliation issues  xyraised in that case and to qualify for carriage on Atlanta area cable systems during the 19961999 election  xperiod. While this change was effective April 5, 1998, WNGMTV states that it indicated in its complaint  x>that, due to certain contractual obligations, it would not be completely programming with "The Box"  xformat until April 19, 1998. In the interim, WNGMTV states that it continued to broadcast the ShopAt xHome Network during overnight hours, programming which was not broadcast on WPXATV. WNGM xTV points out that the programming that was duplicated on WPXATV, and which it was obligation to  S- xzbroadcast during this interim period, constituted less than 15 hours of programming per week.92 yOh- xwԍWNGMTV states that programming logs for the week of April 5, 1997 show that "The Box" was being carried  xfor 95.5 hours during that week. Programming that was carried on an interim basis during that time by both  xWNGMTV and WPXATV covered only 10.5 hours per week. The remainder of the programming broadcast by  x<WNGMTV was obtained by the ShopAtHome Network which, since it is not configured as a series of separate  x"programs" or segments such as infomercials, could not provide specific identifiable dayparts for the logs. In any  xevent, this Network was not being broadcast on WPXATV at the time the current complaint was filed and is not  xbeing broadcast on either station today. As of April 19, 1998, WNGMTV states that it broadcast "The Box"  x<throughout the broadcast day, except for public affairs and children's programming (only 3.5 hours of which was duplicated on WPXATV).9 As a  xNresult, WNGMTV maintains that at the time its complaint was filed it was not broadcasting any  xLprogramming affiliated with the same network as that carried on WPXATV or duplicating programming  S- xas defined by the Bureau's interpretation in its decisions in MediaOne or CSR5143M. Further, WNGM Sb- xTV contends that MediaOne's extensive discussion of the programming on the inTV and Paxson networks"b,`(`(88"  S- x{has no real relevance to this proceeding.2 yOh- xJԍIn a May 29, 1998 letter on behalf of SKMD Broadcasting Partnership, a subsidiary of USA Broadcasting, Inc.,  xthe approved assignee of WNGMTV, USA points out that the programming of WNGMTV consists primarily of  x<a musicbased programming service, "The Box," that it not controlled by Paxson and some children's and other  {O- xprogramming. WPXATV, on the other hand, broadcasts inTV, a Paxsoncontrolled home shopping service. USA  x-states that it has plans to launch locally oriented "Cityvision" programming on WNGMTV, but failure to grant WNGMTV's complaint could severely affect these plans. The fact that the Bureau did not agree with the rationale  xregarding two separate Paxson networks advanced in earlier cases should not tarnish WNGMTV's  S-attempts to advance what it considered to be a valid distinction.B2 yO - xԍWNGMTV states that when Paxson determined it would change the programming format on WNGMTV from  {OZ - xinTV to Paxnet, under the terms of a time brokerage agreement, the new "PAXnet" network MediaOne refers to had  xnot yet been announced. Moreover, while the choice of the name "PAXnet" for this new national service may  xdemonstrate an attachment to the name by Paxson, it fails to demonstrate that it has anything to do with whether or  xnot the programming broadcast by WNGMTV in September 1997 qualified as network programming under the Commission's Rules.   S`-  { 10. xWNGMTV asserts that Congressional policy supports the rights of a must carry station to file a  x[second complaint in order to perfect its carriage rights. It points out that Congress concluded that "[t]he  xFederal Government has a substantial interest in having cable systems carry the signals of local  x]commercial television stations because the carriage of such stations is necessary to serve the goals  xcontained in Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of providing a fair, efficient, and equitable  S- x\distribution of broadcast services."V 2 yO-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 862, 102nd Cong. 2d Sess (1992).V WNGMTV states that this policy has been acknowledged and  Sp- x\ratified by the Supreme Court in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.<pL 2 yO\-ԍ520 U.S. 180 (1977).< WNGMTV maintains that the  xrejection of its right to carriage when it is no longer broadcasting duplicating programming would not only  xcontravene Congressional intent by shutting off access to another outlet in the Atlanta market, but militate  xagainst licensees providing diverse programming to the public. Further, WNGMTV states that  x76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Rules is only triggered where a station fails to file a complaint within 60 days.  xWNGMTV argues that in instances where the Bureau denies carriage, there is no reason why a station  xshould not be afforded the opportunity to correct the deficiency in order to qualify for carriage in the same  SZ- xelection period. Moreover, it maintains that, despite MediaOne's reliance on the decision in Friendly Bible  S4- xChurch,A4d {O- xԍWNGMTV states that MediaOne misinterprets Friendly Bible Church. WNGMTV contends that the  xxcomplaint was denied solely because the station failed to prosecute its complaint within the required 60 days. No  x;decision was reached on the issue of duplication. There is therefore no basis to support MediaOne's contention that  xYthe decision created a rule of finality and preclusion which applies in every case no matter why the initial complaint was dismissed. A the Commission has never determined that a second carriage complaint to enforce a station's  xyrights should be barred, particularly as such an interpretation would only serve to undercut the policy on  S- xwhich the must carry rules are based. For instance, WNGMTV points to cases where the Bureau has  xzrejected carriage because of inadequate signal strength, but left open the possibility that a station may",`(`(88"  S- xestablish a good quality signal later,y2 {Oh-ԍSee Paxson Salt Lake City License, Inc., DA 98869 (released may 11, 1998).y and in San Mateo Community College District,PZ2 yO-ԍDA 972651 (released December 19, 1997).P the Bureau granted  xa station carriage even though it had already rejected the station's earlier complaint. In that decision,  xWNGMTV states that the Bureau noted that "broadcast stations may assert their carriage and channel  xpositioning rights at any time so long as they have not elected retransmission consent," and that "where  x=the station does not initially meet the criteria for must carry status, it subsequently may assert its rights  S:- xonce it satisfies the conditions for must carry status." WNGMTV contends that a station changing its  xprogramming format or network affiliation should also be entitled to reassert its carriage rights on cable  S- xsystems within its market because such change constitutes a bona fide and a new set of circumstances  S-deserving of consideration by the Bureau.2 yON - xԍWNGMTV contends that MediaOne was not prejudiced by not knowing of the programming change since it had already indicated by letter prior to the change that it did not intend to carry the station.  St-   11. xIn a further opposition, MediaOne states that WNGMTV's reliance on Commission "signal  SL - xquality" decisions and the decision in San Mateo Community College District are misplaced. MediaOne  xpoints out that the cases WNGMTV's cites regarding signal quality all involve only a single complaint  xand only prove that the Commission will conditionally grant a carriage complaint where the station has  S - xmade a commitment to provide and pay for necessary equipment to deliver an adequate signal.$ B2 yO- xԍIn any event, MediaOne points out that signal quality disputes are, by their very nature, fundamentally different  {O- xxfrom disputes involving duplicative programming. As stated by the Commission in its Clarification Order in MM  {OJ- xDocket No. 92259 et al., 8 FCC Rcd 4142, 4144 (1993), "a broadcast station's ability to deliver a good quality signal may depend on factors that it cannot control."   xMediaOne states that nowhere in its original complaint did WNGMTV even remotely promise to "cure"  xLits socalled "substantive deficiency." And even if it should do so at some future time, MediaOne states  x0that it appears unlikely the Bureau would conditionally grant such an odd complaint. Moreover,  S6- xMediaOne states that the San Mateo case not only involved a noncommercial station, which is not subject  xto the restrictions of 76.7(c)(4)(iii), but its two carriage complaints were filed four years apart and in two  xydifferent election periods. In addition, MediaOne argues that WNGMTV's claims that its actions herein  xhave been "bona fide" are false when one considers that its repetitious 1998 carriage demands were  x{expressly premised on the carriage of supposedly "separate" and "different" Paxnet programming.  xTherefore, MediaOne maintains, the history of those earlier claims cannot be said to have no bearing on  x=the instant complaint. Moreover, MediaOne states that an examination of the 41 eighthour video tapes  S - xproffered by WNGMTV to the Commission during the proceedings in CSR5075M and MediaOne,  xdemonstrates massive duplication of programming by WNGMTV and WPXATV of up to 95.5 hours  xper week. MediaOne states that when the contents of these tapes is compared to September 1521, 1997  x.program schedules for both WNGMTV and WPXATV, the level of duplication rises to 107 hours per week.  S2-  ? 12. xWNGMTV's reply to the further opposition states that MediaOne has passed the bounds of all  xreason and common sense in its latest unjustified filing. It reiterates that it has provide the Bureau with  S- xbona fide and valid information during this proceeding and that this conclusion is supported by the record.  S- xWNGMTV maintains that its instant complaint is valid and that its reliance on signal quality cases is fully". ,`(`(88"  xjustified as duplicative programming and network affiliations are similarly curable defects. Moreover,  S- xWNGMTV states that the fact that in San Mateo the station was noncommercial is irrelevant. WNGM S- xTV points to the fact that in San Mateo the Bureau cited the Clarification Order in MM Docket No. 92 S- xL259,> d yO-ԍSee footnote 31 above.> stating that any "broadcast station [regardless of whether it is commercial or noncommercial] may  x^assert their carriage and channel positioning rights at any time so long as they have not elected  S>-retransmission consent."  S-  S-( DISCUSSION ă  S-  N 13. xIt is uncontested that the Bureau's prior decision in CSR4990M denied WNGMTV carriage on  x@MediaOne's Atlantaarea cable systems due to the fact that it was found to be duplicating the  xprogramming of WPXATV. The main point of contention in the current case is whether WNGMTV  xis entitled to file a second must carry complaint against MediaOne within the same election period.  xWNGMTV argues that it is eligible to file another complaint because it has substantially altered its  xprogramming and is no longer a duplicating station. In support of its contention WNGMTV points to:  xa) previous Commission decisions that conditionally granted a station's must carry complaint in instances  xwhere that station was not currently providing a good quality signal; and b) the Commission's decision  S^- xkin San Mateo Community College District, supra, that granted a second must carry complaint filed by  S8- educational station KCSMTV against Century Communications.  S-   14.x MediaOne argues that 76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules calls for the dismissal of a  xstation's must carry complaint when it is filed more than 60 days after the cable system's denial of  S- x\carriage.!X2 yO- xԍWhich in this case, according to MediaOne, was its February 2, 1997 denial of WNGMTV's original carriage request prior to the filing of CSR4990M. MediaOne maintains that the Commission's decision in Friendly Bible Church, Inc., supra,  Sr- x[clearly bars a commercial station from making a subsequent demand for carriage after its initial complaint  xhas been denied by the Commission for the duration of a must carry election period. MediaOne contends  S"-this is true regardless of whatever changes a station may make during that interval.""2 yOr- xKԍMediaOne also argued that WNGMTV's complaint had no merit since its January 1998 request for carriage  xwas based on the station's belief that its then current programming (Paxnet) was not duplicative. Subsequent to  xWNGMTV's filing its second must carry complaint it altered its programming. MediaOne maintains that in view  xof this, WNGMTV's complaint should be dismissed. After review, however, we do not find that MediaOne was  xZprejudiced by this change of circumstances as it had ample opportunity to address this issue in the context of the instant proceeding.   S-  O15.xWe find MediaOne's reliance on the above to be misplaced. Section 76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the rules  xNis relevant where a station has failed to take advantage of the Commission's must carry complaint  xprocedures within 60 days of a denial of carriage by a cable system. Here WNGMTV has filed its  xcomplaint within 60 days of MediaOne's March 23, 1998 refusal of carriage. MediaOne's attempt to make  x=WNGMTV's current complaint retroactive to the system's earlier denial of carriage prior to the filing of  S - xCSR4990M is unpersuasive. Neither the rule nor the Commission's decision in Friendly Bible Church  xkbar stations from filing subsequent complaints where there has been a substantial intervening material change in circumstances which was not present when the station's original timely complaint was filed. "( ",`(`(88"Ԍ S-  ԙ16.x In Friendly Bible Church the Commission found that the station involved, KLXVTV, had  S- xforfeited its mustcarry rights for the three year election period because it had not filed a complaint within  xjthe 60 day period provided for in Section 76.7(c)(4)(iii). In the subsequent application for review in this  x case, KLXVTV questioned the Commission's analysis of the facts in the case, particularly as to the  Sb- x>specific date the cable system in question refused carriage. From start to finish, the issue in Friendly  S<- xBible Church was one of late filing. This is not the case here. Rather, KLXVTV filed a timely  xjcomplaint the first time thereby perfecting its rights. Subsequently, after a substantial material change in  xMcircumstances, which was not present when it filed its first timely complaint, it filed a second timely  S- xcomplaint. In Friendly Bible Church, the Commission found that the station never filed a timely complaint which barred it from filing any complaint in the current election cycle.  SP -  17.xWe find that WNGMTV's program change from Paxsoncontrolled programming, which had been  xzfound to be duplicative, to a USA Networks/music video format to be a substantial material change in  xycircumstance which was not present when it filed its original complaint. Consequently, WNGMTV was  x!not barred from filing a new timely complaint. In areview of the programming logs submitted by  xWNGMTV in its reply, comparing the programming of WNGMTV to that of WPXATV during the  xweek of April 511, 1998, we note only 7 hours of programming broadcast by WNGMTV during that  x{week which duplicates programming on WPXATV, not all of which is simultaneously broadcast.  xTherefore, we conclude that the programming currently broadcast by WNGMTV, as outlined in its  S-carriage complaint, does not duplicate that of MediaOne's currentlycarried station WPXATV.   S-  S-  18.xFinally, with regard to the arguments raised by MediaOne as to the inconsistencies and underlying  xMmotives in WNGMTV's programming changes, we find no reason to conclude that an administrative  xhearing would be necessary.WNGMTV has met the Commission's requirements to be considered a must  xcarry station and MediaOne has not shown that WNGMTV's filing was inappropriate in view of the above.  S-  S-1ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S-  N19.xAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934,  xlas amended, 47 U.S.C. 534, that the must carry complaint filed on behalf of Whitehead Media of  S0- xGeorgia, Inc., IS GRANTED, and MediaOne, Inc. IS ORDERED to commence carriage of WNGMTV within sixty (60) days of being advised by WNGMTV of its channel position election.  S-  20. x IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that WNGMTV shall notify MediaOne in writing of its channel  xposition election (76.57 of the Commission's Rules) within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order.  S -21. xThis action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William H. Johnson x` `  hh@Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau "& ",`(`(88n("Ԍ2APPENDIX I WNGM is requesting carriage on the following MediaOne cable systems located near Atlanta, Georgia:  S`-1) xAlpharetta hh@11)hTyrone  S8- xRoswell hh@hFayette County  S-xFulton County hh@hFayetteville x` `  hh@hSouth Fulton County  S-2)xAtlanta` `  hh@hCoweta County  S-xFort McPhersonhh@hWoolsey x` `  hh@hBrooks  SH -3)xClayton Countyhh@hPeachtree City xForest Park  S -xRiverdale hh@12)hSnellville  S -xMorrow hh@hGwinnett County  S -xLake City hh@hLilburn  S -xJonesboro hh@hGrayson  SX-xHapeville hh@hNorcross  S0-xLovejoy hh@hBerkeley Lake  S-xNorthern Henry Countyhh@hDuluth  S-xFort Gillem hh@hLoganville  S-4)xStone Mountainhh@13)hAustell  Sh-xDeKalb Countyhh@hMarietta  S@-xDecatur hh@hCobb County  S-xClarkston hh@hKennesaw  S-xAvondale Estateshh@hAcworth  S-xPine Lake hh@hDouglas County  S-xLithonia hh@hBartow County x` `  hh@hDobbins AFB  SP-5)xDouglas Countyhh@hPowder Springs xDouglasville  S-xFairfield Plantationhh@14)hConyers  S-xWest Fulton Countyhh@hRockdale County  S-xLithia Springs hh@hNewton County  S`-10)xCollege Park xEast Point