WPC 2?BJ$Courier#|j#Xw PE37WXP#Times New RomanArial BoldCG Times P6G;XP[X@Times New RomanArial Bold#Xw PE37WXP#2@qK Z CourierCG Times"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4P LPT1 (Local)HPLAS4P.PRS4Xj\  P6G;\ [XP8wC;,WXw PE37XPB(\n @AU;7G; =K`p6<GYfm4DS[kx2rrK2G'#|j "i~'^'-@KKu`%--3M%-%%KKKKKKKKKK--MMMS````XSh`%K`Sp`hYh`XS`X}XXS-%-MK%KSKSK-SS%%K%uSSSS3K-SKhKKC3%3M-%MM---%------K-S%`K`K`K`K`Ku`KXKXKXKXK%%%%%%%%`ShShShShS`S`S`S`SXK`K`ShShSXK`SXS`K`K`K`K`K`M`K``XKXKXKXKhShShShShS`S`S%%-S--%ShKMM`KS%S3S-S@S%`S]`S`ShShS}`3`3`3XKXKXKXMS@S-SM`S`S`S`S`S`S}hXMSCSCSC`SS-`SXKS-XK`'CK W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN0PP0KK-SKKKKK30ppK-5ccKp-%%CCK--PKKPe0PP0MjjSS%CCu-"XXXXee{CePPHCMPPCTimes New RomanArial BoldCG TimesCG Times BoldXj\  P6G;\ZXPTimes New RomanArial BoldCG TimesCG Times BoldTimes New Roman BoldxfK,',K2pPG;y+h=5,p&h2pPG;&'^80,^2pPG;SS-`SXKS-XK`'CK W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN0PP0KK-SKKKKK30ppK-5ccKp-%%CCK--PKKQe0PP0MjjSS%CCu-"XXXXee{CePPHCMPPC2gRvp/CaptionCaption for PleadingS BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ,"Washington, D.C. Trianglea8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2kk<vLa6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2L t h  BibliogrphyBibliography :X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2f ~*a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersUj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2!hAA a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2#C!!Q""a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2L&#~$@%%a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2,3~&'e+ ,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:+>,?a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf)P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf*[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf+f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf,q 2+C-d@. @/A0wBBld/UnderlieBold and Underline Text-/  CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output File.W r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BIndentquoteeSingle space left & right indent/N X HeadingChapter Heading0J d  ) I. ׃  2 F1]C2C3dD4DRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading20\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd3+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date4 X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2I5iM?dN@jhNBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented=N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level>| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large?B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored@ V -q2TAOBE#QC-hRD8SLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsAu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceB ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatCD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceD:A ,p, $0$002XE8TF7VGXWH[0XINVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroEz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceF+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleGSMALLSmall TypestyleH2)ZI[XJ[YK[sYL[YFINEFine TypestyleILARGELarge TypestyleJEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleKVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleL2.]M[ZN[Oe]\Pl\ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with HeaderM+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   footnote tex#N']#d6X@C@#footnote referencefootnote referenceO Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontP 2_Ql`]Rx]SlD^Tl^Document 8Document 8Q Document 4Document 4R  Document 6Document 6S Document 5Document 5T 2bdUlN_Vl_W&`XDbDocument 2Document 2U Document 7Document 7V Right Par 1Right Par 1W` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2X` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2ZkYldZe[g\@` `  ` ` ` 9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3E0? @    10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EJAB` ` @  ` `  2dz'ݠ11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3ESCD` `  @  12376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E\EF` `  @hh# hhh 13386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EeGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EnIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 2+g!153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EwKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EFMN *  ׃  173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3E&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3E&QR  . 2ҧ]"193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3E*ST    203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3E'UV   213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3E&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3E4Y$Z     2N233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3E&[\  . 243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3E&]^  . Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3EUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3E;kl#FxX  P CXP#2Pmpoq߭itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3E*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#header2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Eo p`    #FxX  PCXP# Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  . 2OeeLp߯Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  ` ` ` 2CRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2Ƴ|;Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  2ʸ5ERight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . 2q-Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     2(}nTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab 28ֿParagraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh 2ke$}Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 2%V26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 2<1n30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#2n<v_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 2&vNvv:vheading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2vXvDdbendnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E .25ld_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2Qga42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2@bTl"a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2H(r$lbly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C 2jzlPn:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#26: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2[lhZ.,,0kjH 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` 2S1a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# 2DMqa71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  2vwzTitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  Hanging indent   #Xx PXP#  X` hp x (#%'0*#Xx PXP#2# AY %WPC3  2BJZ Courier3|xix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) rm 804 L2HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ ZX@2 6 ZF v3|xHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) rm 804 L2HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ ZX@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` MACDocument4     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##u\4 PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*para numnumbered indented paragraphs'Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2~lvStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2|<XStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2g$*KK"Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 "i~'^5>Xgg3>>Fj3>33gggggggggg>>jjjryr3gr{yryyyr>3>jg3grgrg>rr33g3rrrrFg>rggg\F3Fj>3jj>>>3>>>>>>g>r3ggggggygygygyg33333333rrrrrrrrryggrrrygryrgggggjgygygygygrrrrrrr33>r>>3rgjjgr3rFr>rXr3rrrrrFFFygygygyjrXr>rjrrrrrryjr\r\r\rr>rygr>yg5\g),)WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBgg>rgggggFBg>Ig>33\\g>>nggnBnnBirr3\\>"yyyy\nnc\jnn\"i~'^09P]]x/99?a/9//]]]]]]]]]]99aaagxxxxngx/]xgxpxngxnnng9/9a]/]g]g]9gg//]/gggg?]9g]]]S?/?a9/aa999/999999]9g/x]x]x]x]x]x]n]n]n]n]////////xgggggxgxgxgxgn]x]xgggn]xgngx]x]x]x]x]xax]xxn]n]n]n]gggggxgxg//9g99/g]aax]g/g?g9gPg/xguxgxgggx?x?x?n]n]n]nagPg9gaxgxgxgxgxgxgnagSgSgSxgg9xgn]g9n]x0S]%(%WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNbHHHHB>NH8H>THNCNHB>HB^BB>"":88>8>8">>8X>>>>&8">8N882&&:"::"""""""""8">H8H8H8H8H8dXH8B8B8B8B8H>N>N>N>N>H>H>H>H>B8H8H>N>N>B8H>B>H8H8H8H8H8H:H8HHB8B8B8B8N>N>N>N>N>H>H>">"">N8::H8>>&>">0>H>FH>H>N>N>d^H&H&H&B8B8B8B:>0>">:H>H>H>H>H>H>^NB:>2>2>2H>>"H>B8>"B8H28WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$88">8888m8&$TT8"(JJ8T"228d"">d22Xd""BBBBLL\dd2Ld<<62:b<   ??       ?  ?          ?     ?   ?   ?            ?? ? ??  ? ?   ?            ?        ??  ?  ?    &  '  '        ?       ?            ??  ??  ? ? ?   ?    ?                        ?   ??   ?   ? ?ǀ   ?ǀ  ? ?À  ? ?À   ?À   ?À   ?         ?         ?  ?  π       ?   ?            ?  À ?        ? ? ?      ?    8?       ? ? ~  ?  ? ?  ? ?  ?    ?  ? ??  ?   ?   ? ??  ?   ?  ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  ? ?   ?   ?   ?  ?  ? ?? ? ? ??? ~?   ? ? ? ?? ? ??  ? ? ??  ?  ?  ?À? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ? ? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ?? ??  ??  ???  ?  ?  ? ?? ??  ?  ?  >?  ?  ?? - ?: 9 4ǀ? ?4 4 4? 4 4 4 4 5? 5 4 ?4 ?4 5 5 5 ?1? ?1 ?1 ?1 ?0 1x 1 / /? ?/π / / / .? ??.? ?. <. - - - --,,?,,-?----?+?* ??* ?+,>,,,?,?,?,--.?.?.?.%?À%%%%%%?%%?%?%?%&&'''?'?'?''?'())))x)?)?)?))*+++ǀX? π? ? ??? ##?&#&#? %#0%#x?%#?x%#?|%#?%#?%#?%#?%#%#%#%# ?%# $# ?$#?$# $# ?$# $#$#$#$#$#$#$#$###??####?##?##?#$ ?#$'$?'$'*'*'+'++XC Y--|%Z X-  ` $#K2pPG;#News media Information 202 / 4180500 `$Recorded listing of release and texts `R!$.202 / 4182222  L5-#&h2pPG;p&#Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20554  #^2pPG;#y: m dddy  M8i#^2pPG;##,92pPG;J,#This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).  y:  dddhy  M8i U 1  1  Figure 1  Figure 1 y!HH@Uddfcclogo.wpgHHy! Xz dd8u H#S2pPG;h# NEWS - X   #Xw PE37WXP#Report No. CS 9810CABLE SERVICES ACTION   June 26, 1998 T  COMMISSION ACTS ON CABLE TELEVISION  HORIZONTAL OWNERSHIP RULES T6(CS DOCKET 98264)TP xThe Commission has adopted an order and further notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the cable television horizontal ownership rules. Section 613 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to "prescribe rules and regulations establishing reasonable limits on the number of cable subscribers a person is authorized to reach through cable systems owned by such a person, or in which such a person has an attributable interest." xThis order on the cable horizontal ownership limits addresses the pending reconsideration petitions and maintains the current rule which provides that no person may hold attributable interests in cable systems reaching more than 30% of all homes passed nationwide by cable. The order generally denies a motion to lift the Commission's voluntary stay on enforcement of the 30% limit, but does lift the stay as to the rules' information reporting requirements. xThe further notice seeks to reexamine the cable television horizontal ownership rules to ensure consistency with the statutory objectives of these rules in the context of evolving market conditions. |The notice seeks comment on whether, in light of evolving market conditions, 30% should remain the appropriate horizontal ownership limit. The notice also seeks comment on whether the Commission should revise the rules to consider the presence in the market of all multichannel video programming providers rather than cable operators alone, and whether to base the limit on actual subscribers rather than on homes passed. Comment is also sought on the 35% minoritycontrol allowance. xThe order and further notice are based on the recognition that cable industry consolidation can result in certain economic efficiencies that benefit consumers. Congress, however, has also expressed concern that excessive horizontal concentration can adversely impact consumer access to programming. Accordingly Section 613(f)(2) directs that, in addition to other public interest concerns, the Commission must consider and balance seven particular public interest objectives in establishing the horizontal ownership rules: (1) to ensure that no cable operator or group of cable operators can unfairly impede the flow of video programming from the programmer to the consumer; (2) to ensure that cable operators do not favor affiliated video programmers in determining carriage and do not unreasonably C(over)"#,D%D% $"Ԍ $ v  $ v 4H 2 restrict the flow of video programming of affiliated video programmers to other video distributors; (3) to take account of the market structure, ownership patterns, and other relationships of the cable industry, including the market power of the local franchise, joint ownership of cable systems and video programmers, and the various types of nonequity controlling interests; (4) to take into account any efficiencies and other benefits that might be gained through increased ownership or control; (5) to make rules and regulations that reflect the dynamic nature of the communications marketplace; (6) to impose no limitations that prevent cable operators from serving previously unserved rural areas; and (7) to impose no limitations that will impair the development of diverse and high quality programming. xExamination of the cable horizontal ownership rules reflects the Commission's efforts to promote competition in the video marketplace. Comments are due by August 14, 1998; reply comments are due by September 3, 1998. xAction by the Commission June 23, 1998, by Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 98138). Chairman Kennard, Commissioners Ness, FurchtgottRoth and Powell and Commissioner Tristani dissenting part. Commissioners FurchtgottRoth and Tristani issuing separate statements. AFCC  Y-xNews Media contact: Morgan Broman at (202) 4182358. xCable Services Bureau contact: John Norton at (202) 4187200. xTTY: (202) 4187172 ",,,`"  X-$ v   $ v   $ v x #Xj\  P6G;ߊXP# SEPARATE STATEMENT OF  X- COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTTROTH  TP In re: Implementation of Section 11(c) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and  X-Competition Act of 1992, Horizontal Ownership Limits, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Xa-xI am pleased that the Commission seeks comment on the constitutionality of the 35%  XJ-"minoritycontrol allowance," 47 CFR section 76.503(b), for cable subscriber limits. See  X5-supra  at 32. In my view, the constitutionality of this provision in light of intervening  X -judicial decisions most notably, Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) is, at best, dubious. xAccordingly, while it certainly does no harm to seek comment on the efficacy of this  X -regulation, I believe that such comment is entirely unnecessary and I would not have sought it. If a regulation appears to violate the Constitution, that is all we need to know in order to  X-decide whether to affirm it on reconsideration. OI. xAt the outset, I note that the Commission's statutory authority to promulgate the minoritycontrol allowance (or any other racebased cable subscriber limits, for that matter) is  X-scant. Section 613(f)(1)(a), which orders the Commission to set horizontal ownership rules, is  X-entirely raceneutral. Its plain language supports no rational inference that Congress intended different subscriber limits to apply to different people based on nothing other than their race: Xx"[T]he Commission shall . . . prescribe rules and regulations establishing reasonable  X-limits on the number of cable subscribers a person is authorized to reach through cable  X-systems owned by such person, or in which such person has an attributable interest." (# 47 U.S.C. section 613(f)(1)(a)(emphasis added). xNor do the "public interest" factors that Congress outlined make any distinctions  X-between people based on minority or nonminority status. See id. section 613(f)(2)(A)(G). To be sure, one of the factors states that the Commission shall "not impose limitations which would impair the development of diverse and high quality programming." Section 613(f)(2)(G). Congress clearly meant for the Commission to protect cable operators' ability to show a wide variety of choice programming by not setting subscriber limits so low as to dry  X"-up concentrationbased efficiencies that facilitate costly programming investments. See House  X#-Report at 43; Senate Report at 33; see also 8 FCC Rcd at 8571 (observing that "higher concentration levels enable[] cable companies to take advantage of economies of scale and foster investment in more and better original programming and a wealth of viewing options for consumers"). But there is no indication in the statute, or even its legislative history, that Congress meant for the Commission to view the issue of subscriber limits and varied, quality programming through the historically troubled lens of race. xIn short, we simply do not have a clear Congressional directive that the Commission, in setting horizontal limits, make racebased distinctions among cable system owners. Given"*,,,O)" the weighty constitutional issues that arise whenever government employs such classifications,  X-we should be reluctant to read them into statutes. See generally United States v. ThirtySeven  X-Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 369 (1971) (statutes should be construed to avoid, not to create, constitutional problems). KKII. xSection 76.503(b), which on its face employs racial classifications, raises grave  XL-constitutional questions. In particular, Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S.200 (1995), which was decided after the Commission promulgated section 76.503(b), casts substantial doubt upon its constitutionality under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.  X -xIn Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental action based on race is  X -subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 226. This standard of review obtains, the Court made clear,  X -whether or not the government's motives can be characterized as "benign." Id. at 227. Thus, the use of racial classifications by any governmental actor is now constitutionally permissible  X-only where the measure is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Id. at  X-235.t 0 X- xyԍ#Xj\  P6G;ߊXP#As an initial matter, this regulation plainly requires the government to engage in racebased  xdecisionmaking. In situations where a cable operator has more than 30% but less than 36% of  x.national subscribers, the question whether that person is within legal limits for subscribership  xdepends entirely on the racial identity of those who own or control affiliated systems. Therefore,  X- x{whatever claims might be advanced with respect to the applicability of Adarand to other  X- x=Commission regulations, cf. Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod v. FCC, No. 971116, slip op. at  x.13 (D.C. Cir. April 14, 1998) (summarizing and rejecting argument that FCC's equal employment  xopportunity rules do not involve racebased decisionmaking), it cannot be maintained that  xgovernment action under this regulation does not turn expressly and precisely upon considerations of race.t x xWith respect to the government interest in section 76.503(b), the Supreme Court has  XB-never held that diversity of programming the Commission's purported goal in adopting the  X+-minoritycontrol allowance, see 8 FCC Rcd 8565, 857879 (1993) qualifies as a compelling  X-government interest. See Lutheran ChurchéMissouri Synod v. FCC, No. 971116, slip op. at  X-2021 (D.C. Cir. April 14, 1998) (observing that in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990), the Court held programming diversity to be an important but not a compelling government interest). There is simply no affirmative authority for the proposition that the interest that has been asserted by the Commission in support of its regulation is  X-legally sufficient under strict scrutiny. 0 X%- xLԍ#Xj\  P6G;ߊXP#In fact, this legal problem i.e., the lack of a compelling government interest would arise  X%- xwith respect to any regulation created in order to foster programming diversity. I thus find it hard  xLto see how any horizontal ownership rule intended to advance such a goal could be fashioned  X'- xxunder Adarand, as the Commission suggests. See supra at 32 ("We seek comment on how we can  X(-develop our policies consistent with the standards set forth in Adarand"). xFurthermore, as in other contexts, the Commission's stated goal is something of a moving target. The Second Report & Order adopting the allowance does not explain what the"b ,,," Commission actually intends to accomplish when it speaks of promoting "diversity" in cable  X-programming. Cf. id. at 19 ("The Commission never defines exactly what it means by 'diverse programming.'"). Of course, were "diversity" defined in a contentspecific way, such an  X-interpretation would trigger the First Amendment, as the D.C. Circuit has noted. See id. at 1920 ("Any real contentbased definition of the term may well give rise to enormous tensions  X-with the First Amendment.").-0 X - xԍ#Xj\  P6G;ߊXP#In contrast to broadcasters, cable operators receive full First Amendment protection with  X- xxrespect to their transmission and selection of programming. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.  X- xv. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 63641 (1994). Accordingly, the First Amendment "tensions" referred to  X -in Lutheran Church, which involved broadcasting, would be even stronger here.- xWith respect to the second step under strict scrutiny, the fit between the means and ends here is loose, if not sloppy. The Commission has stated that the 5% allowance will foster investment in minorityowned cable systems, in turn create more minority ownership, and  X -ultimately result in more minority "viewpoints" in programming. See 8 FCC Rcd at 857879.  X -But the record in this proceeding is devoid of any evidence to support the Commission's predictive rationale, particularly the assumption that cable system ownership by a person of a  X -certain race will lead to an identifable type of programming content. Cf. Lutheran Church, slip op. at 2223 (faulting Commission, in overturning EEO rules as unconstitutional, for lack of evidence "linking lowlevel employees [at broadcast stations] to programming content");  X-Lamprecht v. FCC, 958 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (criticizing Commission, in finding gender preferences in licensing hearings unconstitutional, for lack of evidence of connection between  Xl-female ownership of broadcast stations and "female programming"). xNor has the Commission made any attempt to explain why a 5% allowance is a more appropriate remedy for the posited diversity problem than a more limited allowance of, say, 3%. To the contrary, the flat 5% of extra passage for minoritycontrolled systems seems an exceedingly blunt instrument for achieving the Commission's goal (even if that goal were a legally compelling one, which, under current precedent, it is not). For instance, I can find no connection in the record between the particular percentage of extra subscribers that minoritycontrolled companies may serve under this regulation and the degree to which that allowance furthers ownership and programming. The 5% allowance thus appears to be a rigid numerical preference, with no record evidence to support either its necessity or efficacy in relation to the purported goal. xRelatedly, there appears to have been no consideration in this docket of raceneutral alternatives for increasing minority ownership or programming participation, as required under  X-the narrowtailoring prong of strict scrutiny. See Adarand, 500 U.S. at 23738 (citing  X-Richmond v. J.A. Croson, 488 U.S. 469, 507 (1989)). The Commission seems to have approached the use of this explicit racial classification as a foregone conclusion, rather than as an alternative approach after first evaluating the utility of rules that do not draw lines among citizens based on their race. Indeed, in the notices of proposed rulemaking and the order of  X"-adoption, the Commission never even broached the possibility of raceneutral rules. See 8 FCC Rcd 210, 217 n. 58 (1992); 8 FCC Rcd 6828, 685051 (1993); 8 FCC Rcd at 867879.  Xx$-This is perhaps understandable given that AdarandĠhad not been decided at the time these documents were issued, but that fact does not solve the basic deficiency in this proceeding  XL&-that now exists under that case."L&:,,,%"ԌlLIII. xFor the foregoing reasons, governing judicial precedent strongly suggests that section 76.503(b), which literally creates two sets of rules for regulated entities based solely on the racial identity of those who own or control related systems, constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws. The Commission has failed to articulate either a compelling government interest or to achieve a carefully crafted fit between the means it has chosen and the ends it says it intends to promote. The regulation therefore appears to be, at this juncture, facially unconstitutional.  X -x` `  hh*@*h* xAs indicated above, I certainly cannot object to my fellow Commissioners asking questions about the practical workings of the rule. The significance of such information, however, pales in comparison to the strong indication under existing caselaw that the regulation is unconstitutional. As the courts have admonished us, "[f]ederal officials are not only bound by the Constitution, they must also take a specific oath to support and defend it."  Xy-Meredith Corp. v. FCC, 809 F.2d 863, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1987). If a regulation appears to be unconstitutional, I believe that is reason enough indeed, it is the most important reason that I can imagine to eliminate the rule. "6,,,"  X- `(#June 2 $ v4  $ v 6 $ v , 1998  X- PARTIAL DISSENT OF COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI ă  X-UIn the Matter of Implementation of Section 11(c) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection  Vv-and Competition Act of 1992 Horizontal Ownership Limits, MM Docket No. 92264 xI would have lifted the Commission's voluntary stay on the enforceability of the horizontal ownership rules. In 1993, when the stay was imposed, a stay may have made sense: the largest cable operator, TCI, still controlled significantly less than 30% of cable  X -subscribers nationwide and appellate review of the Daniels decision could have been expected well before the horizontal limit was threatened. In the past five years, that situation has changed dramatically. By the middle of 1997, TCI controlled 29.3% of cable subscribers, and with the flurry of deals announced over the last several months, it is clear that TCI has breached, or will soon breach, the 30% limit. Moreover, the anticipated appellate review never happened and may not happen anytime soon the D.C. Circuit has been waiting for the Commission to release this reconsideration of our rules before examining the underlying statute's constitutionality. xUnder these circumstances, the 30% limit we are reaffirming today may be rendered moot unless the stay is lifted. To the extent that TCI already exceeds the 30% limit, I would identify those cases and address them separately. That task may be difficult, but not nearly as difficult as the situation we will face if TCI's dealmaking continues and a year from now the D.C. Circuit upholds the statute. Then we will face a situation in which the "facts on the ground" may severely hamper our ability to implement the right policy. xI recognize that the majority has put cable operators on notice that they must be prepared to come into compliance within 60 days if our rules are upheld. I am supportive of such an admonishment, but I am not convinced that it will be enforced. I therefore dissent on this part of the item.