WPC7P 2?BJ.%Courier3|a#&a\  P6G;r&P#Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldCG Times&PpX@Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bolda\  P6G;u&P#2,qK ZCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^5>I\\>>>\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\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRS 4&J\  P6Q\%p&P2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&PltiMate 4.0XyWrite III Plus 3.55XyWrite III Plus 3.56" r!"1 - MM N&o) 3`'^B(Z\2 ^nK3|J01-21-99 03:31p  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)"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\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS2E Z? v vTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldCG TimesTimes New Roman Italic2e=5,d[&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JPy.X80,QwX\  P6G;P==\\=Q=7t=eeeegoo.Ijg2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\HP LaserJet 4/4M02_1; LPT2onal)HPLAS4.WRSS&J\  P6Q,,x$tY&PTimes New Roman (TT)RomanWP MultinationalA Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2pk'ka4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vtJ Xa7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2 -   5a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2&a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2U a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2.a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2p%N3!e %a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%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&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,F,F\Wim,==Fq,q,`WWWWWWWWWW,,iqiOvW`\`\Wdi0A`Omd````WSiWiW\W===`W,W\S\S9S`00\0`W\WJJA`OiWSO=#=i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SWW\0\`WWWWWWW0qWW,SA,,WWWWWWOWWWWWWW\\\\\0000`d`````W`iiii\\`WWWWWWSSSSS0000W`WWWWWOW````S\"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"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\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS8*88S:888888828888888S8Sb.xJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxR]SxJxJSxJoJoJoJoJxgfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSSSxS8.8.8.8.s]A.xSf.f@f.f?f.xSxSxSxSxSxSxo8o8o8]A]A]A]Af@f.f.xSxSxSxSxSxSxxSfJfJfJxSxSf.xSo8]"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%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNpower stations carried by the cable system. Petitioners contend that Cox is attempting to add a new   criterion to the definition of a qualified LPTV station in evaluating the station's overtheair coverage in   addition to the requirement that the station deliver a good quality signal to the cable system's principal   headend. Petitioners argue that such an approach is contrary to the explicit language of Section 614 of the Act and the Commission's rules.  S -  26.` ` Petitioners also contend that to be carried on Cox's system only in Currituck County, and   Lto have WGBSLP's signal filtered out in those portions of the system which serve Chesapeake, Virginia   Beach, Norfolk and other Virginia communities, would contravene the intent of the l992 Cable Act.   Petitioners argue that there is no direct guidance in the Act or the Commission's rules regarding carriage   rights of a LPTV station on a cable system serving areas both within and outside of the top 160 MSAs.   Petitioners state that based on the STA and subsequent changes in the station's facilities, WGBSLP is   now able to deliver a Grade A or B overtheair signal to Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Norfolk and other   communities which they contend make up the station's economic market. Due to the high cable   @penetration in those areas, Petitioners argue that the station will require cable carriage in these   zcommunities in order to attract the advertising and programming revenues necessary for the station to  S@-survive.@(( S-ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#Reply at 14.#&J\  P6Qr&P#ш  S-  _7.` ` Cox contends in its supplement that although additional signal tests at its headend indicate   ythat WGBSLP currently meets the Commission's minimum signal strength requirements, the station still   fails in its obligation to provide a good quality signal because unacceptable carriertonoise ("C/N")   measurements and cochannel interference adversely affect WGBSLP's picture quality. Cox states that   it conducted engineering surveys of the station's signal on December 17 and 22, l998, as delivered from   its new transmitter location. Both tests demonstrated an adequate signal strength, but the December 17"(,`(`(88l"  S-  test measured an "unacceptable" C/N measurement of 46 decibels,h( Sh-  ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#Cox states that in order to meet the Commission's technical standards, which requires a system signaltonoise   jratio of not less than 43 decibels, Cox requires a minimum acceptable C/N specification of 50 decibels from a  yO-broadcast signal received at its headend.#&J\  P6Qr&P#Ѱ and cochannel interference deltas  S-measured at an "objectionable" 25 decibels.( Sp-ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#Cox Supplement at 4. #&J\  P6Qr&P#ё  S-  8.` ` Petitioners argue in their supplemental reply that Cox has misinterpreted the Commission's   position on signal quality issues, and also fails to demonstrate that the station's signal is inadequate.   jPetitioners contend that once a station supplies a sufficient signal strength, a presumption exists that the   station's signal quality is acceptable. Petitioners argue that Cox has no foundation in the Commission's   rules for determining that the station's C/N ratio is insufficient, and that the Bureau has held that  S-  allegations regarding insufficient C/N ratio are irrelevant in determining mustcarry rights of stations.h( S -  ,ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#Petitioners cite TCI Cablevision of Wyoming, 11 FCC Rcd 4054 (1996), where the Bureau held that allegations   of interfering carriers, insufficient C/N ratio, and "grainy" picture were insufficient basis for denying carriage to  yO-station, and that TCI's arguments regarding C/N ratio were deemed not decisional on the issue of carriage.#&J\  P6Qr&P#   In addition, Petitioners contend that Cox's claim of an "objectionable" 25 decibel cochannel interference   ydelta occurred only once out of seven readings, and that Cox has failed to overcome the presumption that the station's admittedly sufficient signal strength also results in sufficient signal quality.  S -  ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION l  S -  plU9.` ` We grant Petitioners' request for carriage on those portions of Cox's cable television   system serving Currituck County, North Carolina. The evidence demonstrates that WGBSLP is a   qualified low power television station in Currituck County, pursuant to Section 76.55(d) of the   Commission's rules. Petitioners have demonstrated that the station provides local news and informational   programming not provided by other full power television stations. The station broadcasts a onehalf hour   locallyproduced news program twice per weekday, which provides extensive local news coverage, and   regularly broadcasts important community information to residents of Currituck County. We find nothing   in the record which demonstrates that this type of local coverage is forthcoming from the full power   broadcast stations located in Norfolk, Virginia. In addition, Cox has not demonstrated that the station   provides an unacceptable signal at the system's headend. Furthermore, WGBSLP's overtheair coverage   is not relevant to our analysis of whether the station qualifies for carriage. The Act and the Commission's   rules do not provide for an analysis of a LPTV station's overtheair signal coverage in determining  S-eligibility for carriage.( S0!-ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#See 47 U.S.C.  534(h)(2), 47 C.F.R. 76.55(d).#&J\  P6Qr&P#ѱ  Sx-  `10.` ` While we are ordering carriage in those portions of the system initially requested in the   petition, i.e., Currituck County, we cannot accede to Petitioners' request that we order Cox to carry   yWGBSLP in those areas of the cable system where the cable operator has indicated that it may filter out"(h ,`(`(88{"  S-  or technically segregate the station's signal.( Sh-  ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of l992, Broadcast  {O@-  ,Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2975 (l993). In defining a television market, the Commission stated that   xa cable system providing service to two different markets, where technically feasible, may segregate the channels   provided for mustcarry purposes to each community served. "Thus, where it is technically able to do so, the cable   <operator may offer different mustcarry channel lineups in different communities based on the locations of the  {Ob-  particular communities in the respective ADIs." Id. at 2976. We believe that this analysis for full power commercial stations also holds true in the instant matter.  We do not agree with Petitioners that the Act and the   Commission's rules offer no guidance in regard to the carriage obligations of a cable operator in this   .situation. Both Section 614(h)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 76.55(d)(5) of the Commission's rules state  S-  that a LPTV station will be accorded mustcarry rights, inter alia, if the community of license of the   station and the franchise area of the cable system are both located outside of the largest 160 MSAs. In   this matter, the cable system is comprised of franchise areas both within and outside of the largest 160   .MSAs. Accordingly, the cable operator is obligated in this matter to carry WGBSLP in that portion of its system outside of the largest 160 MSAs.  S-  o11.` ` We cannot concede that the station should be accorded mustcarry rights in portions of   Cox's cable system outside of Currituck County based on the station's overtheair coverage contours.   We agree with Petitioners that the station's overtheair coverage of Moyock and Currituck County is   irrelevant to its mustcarry status in those areas, in that such an analysis would add a new criterion for   =qualification not specified in the statute or the rules. However, to give credence to Petitioners' argument   for expanded carriage rights outside of Currituck County, based on the station's coverage contours, would   likewise add a new dimension for carriage rights of LPTV stations not mentioned in either the statute or  S -the rules.   S2-  312.` ` With regard to Cox's contention regarding WGBSLP's signal quality, the presumption  S -  is that satisfaction of the Commission's signal strength requirement will produce a good quality signal. ( S-ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#Id. at 2990.#&J\  P6Qr&P#ш   In the instant matter, Cox concedes that WGBSLP is complying with the Commission's requirement.   Signal strength, however, is only one element of picture quality determination. When picture quality is   [at issue in mustcarry proceedings, the Commission must weigh the evidence presented by the parties to   [the case, but the burden of proof lies with the cable operator alleging poor quality. We find that Cox has   not met this burden. The Commission's technical standards cited by Cox require a cable system to   maintain a 43 decibel C/N ratio on its distribution plant, not that a station provide a 43 decibel signal to  S-  a system's headend.( SN -ԍ#C\  P6QQwP#47 C.F.R.  76.605 (a)(7)(iii).#&J\  P6Qr&P#ј Cox's contention that WGBSLP's C/N ratio of 46 decibels violated the cable   operator's minimum acceptable C/N specification of 50 decibels is not a basis upon which the cable   Loperator can deny carriage. In addition, Cox's contention of cochannel interference occurred in only one   out of seven readings during two days of testing during which the cable operator contended that the station's signal quality was unacceptable. "*\ ,`(`(88l"Ԍ S-'1 8ORDER ING CLAUSES ĐlU  S-  13. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of   l934, as amended, and Sections 76.55(d) and 76.56(b)(3) of the Commission's rules, that the complaint   M8filed by Joan and Kenneth Wright, licensees of WGBSLP, Moyock, North Carolina in File No. CSR  S8-  j5309M, IS GRANTED , to the extent indicated above, against Cox Communications Hampton Roads,   /Inc., and Cox shall commence carriage of WGBSLP within sixty (60) days of the release date of this order.  S-  14. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WGBSLP shall notify Cox in writing of its carriage   and channel position elections (76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f) of the Commission's rules) within thirty (30) days of this order.  15. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Deborah E. Klein, Chief ` `  hh,Consumer Protection and Competition Division ` `  hh,Cable Sevices Bureau  Y-lU #Xw PE37XP#