WPC! 2BJZ Courier3|a:Wx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si Room 907HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%CX@266KF ZK3|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\2 <hKyK Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic 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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2mKA KKK""i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""%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~'^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\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\Dy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;PE2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P F2e=5,&e4  pG;&G7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPH7nC:,"Ԍ S-ԙ SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ă  S-  N3. xIn support of its complaint, WTVE states that it is located within the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  xADI, as is Comcast's Woodbury, New Jersey system, and it is thus entitled to must carry status provided  x=it delivers a good quality signal to the system's headend. WTVE indicates that, after paying the costs to  xengage a professional tower contractor to temporarily install receiving equipment at the Woodbury  xheadend tower, it conducted signal quality tests on March4, 1997 and found its signal achieved a 35  xdbMv with a carriertonoise ration of +49 db. Since this result was within the signal strength criteria  xmandated by the Commission, WTVE states that it requested carriage on Comcast's system by letter dated  xMarch 5, 1997. WTVE states that negotiations then commenced between Comcast and WTVE's principals  xLin order to seek a schedule for carriage that would be least disruptive to Comcast and its subscribers, but  xit recently became apparent that these negotiations would not result in carriage. On January 19, 1998,  xWTVE indicates that it sent a certified letter to Comcast requesting expedition of the negotiations, but  xComcast's response suggested that any further negotiations should wait until the Commission decided a  S - xpending ADI modification reconsideration filed by WTVE.r  {O-ԍSee Garden State Cable TV, (DA 972347), released November 10, 1997.r Although WTVE states that it submitted a  xfurther letter indicating that there were no similar issues between its current must carry request and the  xpending ADI reconsideration and requested the opportunity to permanently install necessary receiving  xequipment, no response was received to that letter, as well as an April 30, 1998 letter informing Comcast  xthat it was in violation of the must carry requirements. WTVE therefore requests that the Commission order Comcast to commence carriage of its signal.  S-  4. xIn opposition, Comcast argues initially that WTVE's complaint was not timely filed. Comcast  xpoints out that although it failed to respond to WTVE's March 5, 1997 request for carriage with 30 days,  xLWTVE waited more than a year to file its must carry complaint. Comcast states that 76.61(c)(4)(iii) of  xthe rules indicates that "[N]o mustcarry complaint filed pursuant to 76.61(a) will be accepted if filed  S- x>more than sixty (60) days after the date of the specific event described in this paragraph."G4  yO -ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.61(c)(4)(iii).G Comcast  xmaintains that the "specific event" in this instance was its failure to respond to WTVE's March 5th request  xfor carriage. Comcast argues that WTVE missed even a second opportunity to file a timely complaint  x[when Comcast responded on February 2, 1998 to WTVE's January 19, 1998 letter reiterating its carriage  x=request. In any event, Comcast argues that signal strength tests it performed at its headend indicate that  SP- xWTVE fails to deliver a good quality signal.P  yO&- xxԍComcast indicates that the best detectable signal it measured was at 25 dBmv (73 dBm), which is well below the Commission's signal strength criteria. While WTVE may continue to attempt to provide an"P,`(`(88|"  xadequate signal, Comcast maintains that it is incorrectly asserting that it currently has a signal of sufficient  xystrength for carriage. Finally, Comcast indicates that it is filing under separate cover a petition to modify  S- xits market to exclude WTVE for must carry purposes.T yO-ԍTo date, no such petition has been received.T Comcast notes that in an ADI petition filed by  S-Garden State Cable TV with similar facts and equities, the Commission granted deletion of WTVE. X yO-ԍAs noted in footnote 5, there is a pending reconsideration of this case filed on behalf of WTVE.  S8-  5. xIn reply, WTVE states that after it reported to Comcast on March 4, 1997 that it provided a signal  xwhich met the signal strength criteria, it requested carriage conditioned on meeting a reasonable Comcast  x\demand that the 19lb receive antenna necessary for WTVE's reception not compromise the system's  xLtower integrity. However, WTVE indicates that Comcast failed to provide terms of the requested tower  xanalysis, despite further requests to do so. WTVE argues that Comast's contention that the instant  xcomplaint is untimely is specious in light of the fact that it is clear that WTVE did not assert  xunconditional must carry rights until after negotiations had broken down by April 30, 1998. It points out  xythat both the March 5, 1997 and January 19, 1998 letters to Comcast were clearly negotiations about the  x[completion of conditions necessary to allow WTVE to be added to the system and not final demands for  xcarriage. Likewise, WTVE states that its February 5, 1998 letter to Comcast was merely a response to  xzComcast's suggestion that the negotiations between WTVE and the system be suspended pending the  xloutcome of a reconsideration in a separate ADI modification proceeding. WTVE maintains that it  xprovided Comcast with a reasonable period in which to schedule the permanent installation of equipment  xit had been allowed to install temporarily during the testing of its signal and it was only when it was clear  xthat Comcast would not pursue the matter that a demand for carriage was ultimately made. In addition,  xWTVE argues that while it tacitly agreed with Comcast that its raw signal, without specialized equipment,  x/did not meet Commission signal strength criteria, it has since fully demonstrated that with the use of  xjspecialized equipment it can deliver a good quality signal to Comcast's principal headend. WTVE points  Sh- xLout that the Must Carry Order and the statute require no more than that. Finally, WTVE states that the  xalleged filing of an ADI modification petition to seek the exclusion of WTVE from Comcast's system is  S-not only irrelevant to the instant complaint, but is also not grounds for denial.  S-( DISCUSSION ă  Sz-  l6. xAccording to 76.55(e) of the Commission's Rules, commercial television broadcast stations, such  xas WTVE, are entitled to carriage on cable systems located in the same Area of Dominant Influence (or  S*- xy"ADI").? * yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.55(e).? WTVE is located in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ADI, which is also where the communities  x=served by Comcast. However, Comcast maintains that WTVE is not entitled to such carriage because a)  xthe station's must carry complaint was not timely filed, and b) the station does not provide a good quality signal to the system's principal headend.  Sb-  7. xWe do not agree with Comcast's contention that WTVE's complaint was not timely filed. While  xLComcast maintains that the "triggering event" for the filing of a complaint was its own failure to respond  xto WTVE's March 5, 1997 request for carriage, it is clear from the evidence that there were periodic  xnegotiations between Comcast and WTVE regarding the station's carriage from that time until April 1998.  xTherefore, we cannot conclude that there was a clearcut denial of carriage in 1997 and WTVE's filing of"!x ,`(`(88U#"  xthe instant complaint based on Comcast's failure to respond to the station's April 30, 1998 letter is acceptable.  S-  8. xFurther, while Comcast has provided signal strength tests which in general comply with our  x[engineering criteria and appear to indicate that WTVE does not provide a good quality signal, the system  x.did not use specialized equipment to receive and evaluate the signal of WTVE. Moreover, the results of  xKthese tests are radically different from the results achieved by WTVE when it had the opportunity to install  S- xreceiving equipment in March 1997.  yOP- x<ԍSince WTVE did not submit a copy of these tests with its complaint, our staff did not have the opportunity to review the engineering practices used by WTVE. In any event, we note that WTVE has offered to provide, at its  xown expense, specialized equipment to Comcast to ensure the receipt of a good quality signal at the  xsystem's headend. WTVE maintains that with the use of specialized equipment it can provide a signal  xto Comcast's headend that is consistent with Commission criteria. The Commission has stated that  xamplifiers and other equipment may be employed to deliver a good quality signal to a cable system  S - x[headend. The Commission, in the Must Carry Clarification Order,D  yO-ԍ8 FCC Rcd 4142, 4243 (1993).D after reemphasizing that it was the  xtelevision station's obligation to bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality signal to the system's principal headend, stated: xThis may include improved antennas, increased tower height, microwave relay xequipment, amplification equipment and tests that may be needed to determine xwhether the station's signal complies with the signal strength requirements . . . .  x?WTVE, by committing to provide specialized equipment, satisfies its obligation to bear the costs  xassociated with delivering a good signal to Comcast's headend. Consequently, we order Comcast to carry  x!WTVE's signal in the event that WTVE provides a good quality signal employing the specialized equipment it has offered to install at Comcast's principal headend.  S-1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S-  {9. xAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed June 15, 1998, by Reading Broadcasting,  S- xInc. IS GRANTED pursuant to 614(d)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C.  Sz- x[534). Comcast Cablevision of Gloucester County IS ORDERED to commence carriage of WTVE on  xits Woodbury, New Jersey cable system sixty (60) days from the date that WTVE provides a good quality signal at Comcast's principal headend. WTVE shall notify Comcast in writing of its carriage and channel  b%g   xDb%g 10. 10.Dposition elections (76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules) within thirty (30) days of providing a good quality signal.  S`- 10. xThis action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules.< ` yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 0.321.< x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhDeborah Klein, Acting Chief x` `  hhConsumer Protection and Competition Division x` ` hhCable Services Bureau