WPC 2MBERKZ3|a X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"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\HP4M (PCL) (Additional); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRS&a\  P6G;\"\&P2gEKX X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP\ @^.$h'j;U7G;A7 '3) lׇ2 K< Z0 3|a"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+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\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;&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\\pBnnBsgg>\\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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2KKK:Z"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""WYIN's access to its headend in June 1996, it argues that it did so only after it had become clear that   further technical intervention would not resolve WYIN's signal deficiency. Moreover, the cable system   maintains that in fairness to its responsibilities to its customers and programmers, it eventually had to   {make a business decision to discontinue the futile technical efforts on WYIN's behalf. In addition,   <Continental states that although WYIN seems to place great emphasis in its current reconsideration petition   on the issue of whether or not the antenna was lowered, it should be noted that this fact was never   previously challenged by WYIN. Continental maintains that its representation to the Commission   regarding this matter was based on its understanding of what WYIN's consultant did when moving the   yreceiving antenna from one tower leg to another during one of his visits. In any event, Continental argues   jthat, from an engineering standpoint, it seems unlikely that the interference experienced by WYIN would  S-  be resolved by moving the station's antenna a few feet lower. x= yO-  ԍMr. Arvidson states in his affidavit that it is his recollection that he expressed his concern to WYIN's consultant   as follows: ". . . that even if the lowering of the antenna temporarily shielded the interference when attempted, it   is likely that the interference would return due to atmospheric changes. I indicated that such a fix would only defer or change, but not solve, WYIN's signal deficiency." Finally, Continental states that WYIN is   .not presenting any new facts herein, but merely raising new arguments which should have been raised in   its original complaint. As such, it maintains that the public interest does not warrant reconsideration in this instance.  S(- 4. WYIN states in reply that its reconsideration was based on the "public interest" standard of   1.106(c)(2) and not, as was Continental's opposition, on the "new facts" standard of 1.106(b)(2)(ii).   WYIN argues that 615(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended requires the carriage of   .qualified noncommercial educational television stations, 615(g)(4) specifies that a good quality signal is   required, and 615(j)(3) empowers the Commission to order the cable operator to take such remedial steps"` ,`(`(88"  S-  yas necessary.D= {Oh-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 535.D WYIN submits that it is this statutory basis which proves that its reconsideration meets   Lthe standards under 1.106(c)(2). WYIN points out that its evidence as to Continental's refusal to allow   ythe station's consultant to lower WYIN's reception antenna is unrebutted notwithstanding the conclusion   presented in Continental's affidavit as to the effectiveness of such a move; a conclusion made, it should  S`-  =be noted, without any empirical evidence whatsoever."@`Z= yOZ-  ԍIn a second affidavit from WYIN's consultant, Mr. Krueger, it is stated that it was fairly late in the onsite   investigations at the Rolling Meadows headend when it was discovered that the interference experienced by WYIN   came from Channel 56, Lexington, Kentucky, nearly 400 miles distant. Mr. Krueger indicates that his calculations   found that the Rolling Meadows headend and WYIN's antenna were in line of sight with the Lexington, Kentucky   kantenna. It was Mr. Krueger's belief that since WYIN's antenna was located only 50 feet from the top of   Continental's 200250 foot tower, the lowering of that antenna 75100 feet would cause the horizon to interfere with   Ythe Lexington signal, thus eliminating the interference. Mr. Krueger states further that it was early June 1996 when he contacted Continental regarding this adjustment but was not permitted to return to accomplish it." WYIN states that, apparently, Continental feels   [that it has the right to reject mandatory carriage of a qualified signal based merely on the speculation that   >a signal will not be consistently of the same quality. Moreover, WYIN states that Continental never   =disputed that it refused to allow WYIN's consultant access to the system headend to lower the receiving   =antenna nor does it address the fact that its statement that it cooperated with WYIN in its "relocation of   zits antenna to a lower tower position" was false. WYIN argues further that Continental's opposition   [contains many misstatements: 1) The system's statement that "WYIN concedes that its signal quality is   deficient. . . ." is unsupported and opposite to the truth. WYIN's signal strength is sufficient for reception   [purposes the issue is eliminating interference from a distant station. 2) Continental's refusal of access   based on the conclusion ". . . that further technical intervention would not resolve WYIN's signal   Mdeficiency. . . ." is unexplained and unsupported. 3) Continental provides no evidence to support its   allegation of the recommendations its states it made to WYIN to solve the signal quality problems. In   conclusion, WYIN argues that a review of Continental's opposition appears to indicate that Continental   =is fearful that if WYIN is given the opportunity to lower its receiving antenna, the interference would be cleared and carriage would be required.  S- ]5. In a subsequent letter from Continental, the cable system maintains that each and every one of its   statements made in this case were made only after investigation and under oath. It argues that at the time   of the original complaint neither WYIN nor its engineer contested these facts and it is only now, in its   current petition, that charges of falsehood are laid. Continental asserts that apparently WYIN seeks to   resume the previously endless efforts to improve a signal in which all prior ultimate solutions have failed.   Continental submits that WYIN's dismay at its engineer's failure to solve the station's signal quality   problems is no justification for false accusations or deriding Continental's evidence. WYIN filed a motion   to strike Continental's letter as it is in violation of the filing requirements of 1.45 and 1.52 of the Commission's Rules.  SP-@ DISCUSSION ă  S- 6. We are not persuaded by the arguments raised by WYIN herein and will deny its request for   reconsideration. WYIN's reconsideration request appears to turn mainly on the argument that the station's   Mpoor signal quality experienced on Continental's system is directly attributable to interference from a  S-  Lexington, Kentucky station nearly 400 miles distant. The Bureau's engineering staff has reviewed the"b ,`(`(88"   information presented herein and is not convinced that a signal from almost 400 miles away could carry   enough strength to propagate over the horizon and interfere with WYIN's signal. The signal alleged to   =be causing the interference, WDKYTV (Ch. 56), Lexington, Kentucky, is a full power UHF commercial   broadcast station whose transmit antenna is located 1151 feet above average terrain. Using a standard  S`-  engineering formula, the maximum transmit distance to the horizon for WDKYTV would be 47.98 miles.s`= yO-ԍThe transmission distance for UHF stations are generally extremely limited.s   Therefore, interference from WDKYTV would appear unlikely. WYIN has not provided enough empirical   zevidence to convince us that simply being allowed to lower its antenna will solve the noted problems.   Absent such empirical evidence, we will not order Cablevision to use a lower antenna height for testing   WYIN's signal, especially since WYIN did not raise this issue initially. Furthermore, we note that WYIN   has not claimed that it was being treated any differently than any other UHF station carried by Cablevision.  S -1' ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S - 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, that the petition  S -for reconsideration filed on behalf of Northwest Indiana Public Broadcasting , Inc. IS DENIED.  SX-8. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief ` `  hh,Cable Services Bureau