WPC2 2BJ Courier3|aTimes New Roman Bold P6G;PTimes New RomanRoom 907HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%CX@266KF ZK3|j"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN !} Heading 1Centered Headingcal Style 4G Y * à  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List*M0 Y XX` ` (#` head1 # 'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf!$ 2#"l!#!$"%%#a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf"/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf#:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf%P  ` ` ` hhh 2&&$'$(s%)e=&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 footnote referencefootnote reference) 2(*l&+l@',x'-l$(Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font* Document 8Document 8+ Document 4Document 4,  Document 6Document 6- 2$,.l(/l.)0l)1*Document 5Document 5. Document 2Document 2/ Document 7Document 70 Right Par 1Right Par 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#232V,3lt.4.50Right Par 2Right Par 22` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 33 Right Par 3Right Par 34` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 45` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2;6N37l58799Right Par 5Right Par 56` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 67` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 78` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 89` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2B:(;;$ ><$D@=lhBDocument 1Document 1:` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5;` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6<` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2= 2&H>lC?$rC@lEA$FTechnical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2PB$XHC|JDLENTechnical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1C` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3E` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2WFQG&SHDUIvbWtoc 4toc 4F` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5G` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6H` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7I 2`J XK(ZLF\Md^toc 8toc 8J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9K` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1L` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2M` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2&dN`OvbPlHcQrctoatoaN` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionO _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionP endnote referenceendnote referenceQ 2fRpXdSqdTe9eUee13,6gDocument Style=(/D ,*/3ER/0` ` ` 23-6gDocument Style=(/D -*/3ES1 2 . 33.6gDocument Style=(/D .*/3ET 34 43/6gDocument Style=(/D /*/3EU 56 2ehV5fWpfX8gYg5306gDocument Style=(/D 0*/3EV*78   6316gDocument Style=(/D 1*/3EW9:` ` ` 7326gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EX8;<@   8336gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EYA=>@` `  ` ` ` 23kZh[,i\i]}j9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3EZ0? @    10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E[JAB` ` @  ` `  11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E\SCD` `  @  12376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E]\EF` `  @hh# hhh 2wn^ek_$l`lam13386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E^eGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E_nIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E`wKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EaFMN *  ׃  2pbnc.odoeOp173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3Eb&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3Ec&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3Ed*ST    203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3Ee'UV   2dsfqgqhZrir213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3Ef&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3Eg4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3Eh&[\  . 243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3Ei&]^  . 2~jskfulvmm}CitatorD6gFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/3Ejx_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX ##Xj\  PG;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  #Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3EkUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#MACNormalI6g U/=(/D I*/3El'cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#FootnoteL6g( U/=(/D L*/3Emef29n8~om~p$qfootnote tex6g6 U/=(/D M*/3En'gh#FxX  P CXP#headerO6gD U/=(/D O*/3Eoi j  #FxX  P CXP# referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3Ep;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3Eq*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#2rmksb؃tS:upheader2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Ero p`    #FxX  PCXP# heading 3S6g U/=(/D S*/3Esqr #FxX  PCXP# footerT6g U/=(/D T*/3Etst!#X\  PG;P#Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gu` ` ` 2vq/wexeyjDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gv  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gw  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gx  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gy*    2azp/{|1}̊Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gz  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g{8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g|A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g}0     2Y~7Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g~J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2cS$ސRight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right 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&!"  . 2ߓKTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . 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&)*   2F˕Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2};×VParagraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[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` ` `  2 &ϙBParagraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh 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 2t}>C֝25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&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` ` `  2O 29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&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 2ĤZ.Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#2ΦvvlvvXheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2vvvvbheading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2fdHeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. 2?0E1ݮ1DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2´1q1nӳALETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X 2&djXµEHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsu 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 Invoice ,, $0$0  2-X88MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macroz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 21XȾ[ [{[ֿNORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2[c[dEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E .2ol20_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2Na42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2zbl\a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2($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 2jl:\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 (#2p4R: , : , ,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 (#2lZh,,0kjH 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` 2ka31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# 2~Xq a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  2!mWTitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#NotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  2wS6Hanging indentpara numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2{lSStyle 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   Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2 |)iStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2d;BIN 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 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2pXKQK33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,&e4  pG;&\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2E"KKdKK"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.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\2^).Z2y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&7nC:, Xif ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   S- X    S-  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 982151 ă  yxdddy #&J\  P6Qu&P#PK Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-""Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S`-#XP\  P6QynXP##&a\  P6G;u&P#In the Matter ofj) j)  S-DIRECTV, Inc.,j)CSR 5112P Complainant,j) j)  S-v.j) j) COMCAST Corporation,j) COMCASTSPECTACOR, L.P.,j) COMCAST SPORTSNET,j) Defendants.j)  SX-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER lU  S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:H D3 yO-ԍ47 U.S.C.  548(b).> In Section 628(c), Congress instructed the Commission to promulgate regulations that:   (A) establish effective safeguards to prevent a cable operator which has an attributable interest in a satellite   cable programming vendor or a satellite broadcast programming vendor from unduly or improperly   Minfluencing the decision of such vendor to sell, or the prices, terms, and conditions of sale of, satellite   cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to any unaffiliated multichannel video  S-programming distributor; [and]jxD3 yO -ԍCommunications Act  628(c)(2)(A), 47 U.S.C.  548(c)(2)(A).j   (B) prohibit discrimination by a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an   attributable interest or by a satellite broadcast programming vendor in the prices, terms, and conditions   of sale or delivery of satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming among or between  S@-cable systems, cable operators, or other MVPDs or their agents or buying groups. . . . ( @D3 yO-  ԍCommunications Act  628(c)(2)(B), 47 U.S.C.  548(c)(2)(B). Congress provided limited exceptions to this prohibition. A satellite programming vendor is not prohibited from:  X(i) imposing reasonable requirements for creditworthiness, offering of service, and financial  stability and standards regarding character and technical quality; (ii) establishing different prices,  terms, and conditions to take into account actual and reasonable differences in the cost of creation,  "sale, delivery, or transmission of satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming;  (iii) establishing different prices, terms, and conditions which take into account economies of scale,  cost savings, or other direct and legitimate economic benefits reasonably attributable to the number  of subscribers served by the distributor; or (iv) entering into an exclusive contract that is permitted under subparagraph (D) [of this section].   {MH&-Id.Ē " ,`(`(88D"Ԍ S-  24.` ` In Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and   yCompetition Act of 1992: Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution  S-  and Carriage, MM Docket No. 92265, First Report and Order ("Program Access Report and Order"),> D3 yO-ԍ8 FCC Rcd 3359 (1993).>   the Commission concluded that nonprice discrimination is included within the prohibition against   discrimination set forth in Section 628(c)(2)(B). While the Commission did not attempt to identify all   types of nonprice discrimination that could occur, the Commission stated that "one form of nonprice   discrimination could occur through a vendor's 'unreasonable refusal to sell', or refusing to initiate   discussions with a particular distributor when the vendor has sold its programming to that distributor's   ]competitor." The Commission cautioned, however that "'unreasonable' refusals to sell" should be   distinguished from "certain legitimate reasons that could prevent a contract between a vendor and a  St-particular distributor."1 tXD3 {Ol -ԍId.1 Such legitimate reasons would include:  X(i) the possibility of [the] parties reaching an impasse on particular terms, (ii) the  $distributor's history of defaulting on other programming contracts, or (iii) the vendor's  Bpreference not to sell a program package in a particular area for reasons unrelated to an  S -existing exclusive arrangement or a specific distributor.E D3 {O6-ԍId. (footnote omitted).E   S\- 5. "Satellite cable programming" is "video programming which is transmitted via satellite and   which is primarily intended for the direct receipt by cable operators for their retransmission to cable  S -  subscribers."A |D3 yO(-ԍ47 U.S.C. 601(d)(1).A "Satellite broadcast programming" is broadcast programming when such programming is   <retransmitted by satellite and the entity retransmitting such programming is not the broadcaster or an entity  S-performing such retransmission on behalf of and with the specific consent of the broadcaster.A D3 yOh-ԍ47 U.S.C. 548(i)(3).A  Sl- III. THE FACTS   S-  Ԋ6. ` ` Complainant, DIRECTV, is a direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") provider that offers   Lmultichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD") service to approximately 2.8 million subscribers  S-  across the continental United States and Alaska.BE yO!-ԍComplaint at 2, Exhibit 4.B DIRECTV holds a Federal Communications   !Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") license to use three highpowered DBS satellites to offer   approximately 175 channels of digitallydelivered entertainment, educational, and informational  ST-  zprogramming directly to homes and businesses equipped with a satellite dish antenna.?T, E {O %-ԍId. at Exhibit 4.? In particular,   DIRECTV offers various regional and national sports programming through arrangements with regional", ,`(`(88"  S-  and national program suppliers and professional sports leagues.1E {Oh-ԍId.1 As an MVPD, DIRECTV competes directly with cable operators for subscribers.  S-  7. ` ` Defendant Comcast is a multiple system cable operator ("MSO") based in Philadelphia and  S`-  owns and operates, among other businesses, several cable systems and cable programming services.<`ZE yOZ-ԍAnswer at Exhibit 3.< With  S8-  over 4 million subscribers, Comcast is the nation's fourth largest cable operator.t8E yO -ԍComcast's ranking is based on statistics as of July 1997. Id. at Exhibit 1.t In July 1996, Comcast   acquired a 66% interest in the Philadelphia Flyers L.P., to form a new partnership named Comcast S-  /Spectacor, L.P.TzE yO -ԍComplaint at Exhibit 4; Answer at Exhibit 3.T ComcastSpectacor owns the following assets: 1) the Philadelphia Flyers National   Hockey League ("NHL") team; 2) the Philadelphia 76ers National Basketball Association ("NBA") team;  S-  and 3) the CoreStates Spectrum and Corestates Center sports arenas.Q E yOB-ԍComplaint at Exhibit 4, Exhibit 17.Q Also in 1996, ComcastSpectacor   entered into a joint venture agreement with the Philadelphia Phillies Major League Baseball ("MLB") team  SH -  to create SportsNet.2H E {O-ԍId. 2 Commencing October 1, 1997, SportsNet provides 24hour regional sports  S -  programming to cable subscribers in the Greater Philadelphia, Pennsylvania market.@ , E yO-ԍComplaint at Exhibit 4. @ As a basic cable   network, SportsNet appears on the basic service tier ("BST") at no additional charge to Comcast's cable subscribers.  S -   8. ` ` The facts underlying DIRECTV's complaint are undisputed. Beginning in 1995,   lDIRECTV offered SportsChannel Philadelphia ("SportsChannel") programming to its subscribers   nationwide. During the 19961997 season, DIRECTV subscribers had access to a total of 67 games  S-  -carried on SportsChannel.4 E yOd-ԍReply at 10.4 SportsChannel and PRISM were commonly owned cable networks that served  S-  ?the Philadelphia market.6L E yO-ԍAnswer at 2. 6 SportsChannel was a satellite delivered basic tier network that offered   numerous Philadelphia professional major league sport contests, including Philadelphia Flyers hockey  S-  games, Philadelphia 76ers basketball games, and Philadelphia Phillies baseball games.KE {O #-ԍId., Complaint at Exhibit 9. K PRISM is a   network that produced and distributed movies and other entertainment programming, in addition to  S@-  Philadelphia professional major league sport contests.1@nE {ON&-ԍId.1 Unlike SportsChannel, PRISM was delivered   Lthrough terrestrial technology, and its programming was available only as a premium priced subscription",`(`(88"  S-  zservice.4E yOh-ԍAnswer at 2.4 Both SportsChannel and PRISM terminated operations on September 30, 1997.2XE {O-ԍId. 2 Because   SportsChannel distributed its programming through satellite technology, it was considered "satellite cable  S-programming" subject to the program access rules.ME yO:-ԍ47 U.S.C.  548(a), 605(d)(1).M DIRECTV never carried PRISM programming.  S`-  9. ` ` By August 1997, Comcast and its partners, ComcastSpectacor and SportsNet, acquired  S8-  0all the local telecasting rights previously held by the owner of both SportsChannel and PRISM.48zE yOR -ԍAnswer at 3.4  S-  -Thereafter, SportsChannel and PRISM announced they would cease to operate as of September 30, 1997.1  E {O -ԍId.1   jOn October 1, 1997, SportsNet debuted as a new channel on Comcast's, and other cable operators', basic   >service tier in the Philadelphia market area. Defendants distribute SportsNet only through terrestrial  S-  \microwave and fiber technology.7!E {O-ԍId. at 5.7 In addition to the professional sporting events previously offered   through SportsChannel and PRISM, SportsNet's programming includes various professional and collegiate  SH -  sporting events that were not carried on either channel.;"H . E {O-ԍId. at 1617.; SportsNet offers locally produced programming,  S -  =such as sports related talkshows and sports news shows.?# E {O-ԍId. at Exhibit 4.? These shows are all original and have never  S -  appeared before on any programming service, including SportsChannel and PRISM.8$ R E {O-ԍId. at 15.8 In addition,   =SportsNet carries two hours of FoxSports "backdrop" feed, consisting of daily news and minor sporting  S -events.?% E yO,-ԍComplaint at Exhibit 8.?  S -   10. ` ` Defendants have indicated that they license SportsNet programming to a wide variety of   .MVPDs in the Greater Philadelphia market, including local cable operators, wireless cable systems, also   known as multichannel multipoint distribution systems ("MMDS"), satellite master antenna television  S-  ("SMATV") providers, and potential open video systems ("OVS").7&tE yO"-ԍAnswer at 34. 7 From July 1997 to September 1997,   0DIRECTV made several attempts to negotiate with Defendants the carriage rights of SportsNet's  S-  programming.B'E yO\%-ԍComplaint at 3, Exhibit 4.B However, DIRECTV's efforts were unsuccessful, because Defendants indicated that"',`(`(88 "  S-  SportsNet's programming would not be available to any national DBS provider.I(E yOh-ԍAnswer at 22; Reply at Exhibit 3.I In a letter dated September 8, 1997, the President of SportsNet cited "legitimate business  S-  zreasons" for the company's categorical refusal to deal with national DBS providers.)XE yO-  ԍComplaint at Exhibit 2 (letter from Jack L. Williams, President, Comcast SportsNet to Richard E. Goldberg, Vice President Program Acquisitions, DIRECTV (Sept. 8, 1997)). After providing   [Defendants with the requisite ten days notice of its intent to file a program access complaint, DIRECTV   0filed the instant action on September 23, 1997, alleging that Defendants' refusal to sell SportsNet  S8-programming to DIRECTV violates the program access provisions of the Communications Act.g*8E {O -ԍ47 U.S.C. 548(b), (c); see 47 C.F.R.  76.1003(a).g   S-  S- IV. THE PLEADINGS  S-  _ 11. ` ` DIRECTV alleges that Defendants' actions have both the purpose and effect of preventing  Sp-  =the distribution of satellite cable programming to DIRECTV subscribers in violation of Section 628(b).J+pBE yOR-ԍReply at 5; 47 U.S.C.  548(b).J   DIRECTV argues that Defendants chose to distribute SportsNet's programming through terrestrial means   in order to evade application of the program access rules, which Defendants presume do not cover  S -  terrestrially distributed programming.7, E {Oj-ԍId. at 8.7 DIRECTV further alleges that Defendants rely on SportsNet's   manner of distribution as the basis for their refusal to license SportsNet's programming to any DBS  S -  providers.;- d E yO-ԍComplaint at 1516.; DIRECTV characterizes Defendants' outright refusal to sell as an "unfair practice" as  S -  Kcontemplated in Section 628(b).3. E yO-ԍReply at 7.3 DIRECTV also disputes the economic and cost justifications Defendants   zadvanced to support their decision to distribute SportsNet terrestrially instead of by satellite. In this  S0-regard, DIRECTV claims it offered to share in SportsNet's satellite distribution costs./0 E {OT-  [ԍId. at 8, n.15. DIRECTV stated that it would share in the costs of uplinking SportsNet programming to satellite.  S-   12. ` ` DIRECTV further states that Defendants' actions violate Section 628(b), irrespective of   their reasons for adopting terrestrial distribution for SportsNet. DIRECTV focuses on the language of  S-  Section 628(b) which is written in the disjunctive "purpose or effect" of which is to hinder significantly  Sj-  or to prevent the distribution of satellite cable programming to subscribers or consumers._0jE {O#-ԍId. at 10; 47 U.S.C.  548(b)(emphasis added)._ DIRECTV   contends that Defendants caused the demise of SportsChannel, which was clearly satellite cable  S-  programming.H1pE yO*'-ԍReply at 1011; Complaint at 21.H On September 30, 1997, when SportsChannel ceased operations, its Philadelphia regional"1,`(`(88"   sport programming was no longer available to DIRECTV's subscribers. Therefore, DIRECTV alleges that   [Defendants' actions violate Section 628(b), for they effectively precluded DIRECTV's offering of certain  S-satellite cable programming to its subscribers.42E yO-ԍReply at 10.4  S`-   13. ` ` To further support its Section 628(b) claim against Defendants, DIRECTV points to the  S8-  zlegislative intent behind the program access provisions of the 1992 Cable Act,38XE yO0-  ;ԍCable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of 1992, P.L. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460, codified as  {O-47 U.S.C.  521 et. seq. arguing that Congress   yenacted the program access rules to address the horizontal and vertical concentration within the cable and  S-  satellite programming field that inhibit development of MVPD competition.!4&E yO: -  ԍDIRECTV does not provide specific legislative history citations, but rather cites to the Commission's Annual  {O -  KAssessment of Video Competition Reports, as well as the OVS Second Report and Order. See Reply at 14, citing  {O -  Program Access Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3359, 3374; see OVS Third Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20227, 20300; OVS  {O-Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18233, 18320.! Accordingly, DIRECTV   states that Section 628(b) provides the Commission with broad jurisdiction to advance the objectives of  S-  the program access rules.15E {O-ԍId.1 DIRECTV argues that Section 628(b) covers vertically integrated cable   operators' attempts to evade program access obligations by switching their programming distribution from  SH -  {satellite to terrestrial means.v6H 2 E {O-ԍComplaint at 12; See OVS Second Report & Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18325, n.451.v In addition, DIRECTV cites to several of the Commission's Annual  S -  Assessment of Video Competition Reports,w7 E {O-  ԍThe Commission's first three reports appear at: Implementation of Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Act (Annual  {ON-  Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming), CS Dkt. No. 9448,  {O-  First Report ("1994 Report"), 9 FCC Rcd 7442 (1994); Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market  {O-  for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Dkt. No. 9561, Second Annual Report ("1995 Report"), 11 FCC Rcd  {O-  M2060 (1996); and Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video  {Ov-Programming, CS Dkt. No. 96133, Third Annual Report  ("1996 Report"), 12 FCC Rcd 4358 (1997).w wherein the Commission discusses its authority to address  S -the cable industry's use of terrestrial distribution in order to evade program access rules.78 HE yO-ԍReply at 1517.7  S -   14. ` ` DIRECTV also alleges that Comcast and Comcast Spectacor have unduly or improperly  S -  influenced the satellite cable programming vendor, SportsNet, in violation of Section 628(c)(2)(A)D9 E yO!-ԍ47 U.S.C.  548(c)(2)(A).D and  SX-  improperly discriminated against DBS providers in violation of Section 628(c)(2)(B),D:XhE yO`$-ԍ47 U.S.C.  548(c)(2)(B).D because when they   \refused to license SportsNet to DBS providers, they refused to license "satellite cable programming."   DIRECTV asserts that under the rules of statutory construction the term "satellite cable programming"   Mcould be construed to encompass SportsNet, because it contains programming that was once satellite":,`(`(88"  S-  delivered.4;E yOh-ԍReply at 21.4 In making this assertion, DIRECTV contends that courts have looked at Congressional intent   and provided deference to the Commission's expert judgment and interpretation even when the text of the  S-  Communications Act is superficially clear.1<XE {O-ԍId.1 Therefore, DIRECTV explains that although Section 628   references only satellite cable programming, that language should be read in light of the overall context,  S`-  \as well as the legislative history and underlying policy objectives of the 1992 Cable Act.=$`E {O-  KԍId. at 2021. Through enactment of these program access rules, Congress wanted to make available certain   Kprogramming essential to the development of MVPD competition, in light of the increasing vertical integration  {O| -  between cable operators and cable programmers.  See Program Access Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd 3105, 310809. Under this   Lrationale, DIRECTV advocates a broad reading of the statute and asserts that SportsNet is satellite cable   programming as contemplated by Section 628. DIRECTV further points to Defendants' admission that   67 games that were formerly part of SportsChannel's programming are now part of SportsNet's  S-  programming.8>E {O6-ԍId. at 21.8 Accordingly, DIRECTV states that the Commission can and should interpret satellite cable  S-programming to encompass, at the very least, the 67 games previously available on SportsChannel.1?h E {O-ԍId.1  SH -  15. ` ` In addition, DIRECTV claims that there is Commission precedent to adopt an expansive  S -  reading of the term "satellite cable programming".8@ E {O-ԍId. at 24.8 In particular, DIRECTV cites to the Commission's   [application of the program access rules to OVS providers, notwithstanding the statute's lack of reference  S -  to OVS.2A E {O-ԍId. 2 DIRECTV states that the Commission's application was proper for it effectuated the intent of   [Congress in enacting the OVS and program access provisionsmainly, to provide access to programming  S -  Messential to competition in the MVPD marketplace.1B E {O>-ԍId.1 DIRECTV argues the Commission should read   k"satellite cable programming" to include SportsNet, since offering that type of sports programming is  S0-  Messential for DBS providers to attract and retain subscribers. C0E {O -  hԍId. at 22 n.63, 25. DIRECTV stresses the importance of offering sports programming in its ability to compete  yOJ!-against incumbent cable operators for subscribers. Complaint at Exhibit 4.  To reach a contrary result, DIRECTV   [believes would undercut the effectiveness of the program access provisions and impede the development  S-  of competition in the MVPD marketplace.?D E {O$-ԍId. at 2122, 25.? As a matter of policy, DIRECTV states that a ruling in favor"D,`(`(88"   of Defendants would provide vertically integrated cable operators with a license to evade the program  S-access provisions and prevent competing MVPDs from obtaining vital programming.EE {O@-  ԍId. at 26. DIRECTV notes that an essential component of its service is the ability to offer regional sports programming to its nationwide subscribers. Complaint at 2.  S-  `16. ` ` In its Answer, Defendants assert that their conduct does not violate Sections 628(b) or   628(c) and is not anticompetitive to the MVPD market. Defendants argue that the Commission is granted   >only limited authority to adjudicate disputes regarding access to satellite cable and satellite broadcast  S-  programming.8F"E yO -ԍAnswer at 78. 8 In determining the status of SportsNet, Defendants assert that it is irrelevant that the now   defunct SportsChannel was satellite cable programming. Since its inception, SportsNet has been distributed   /solely through terrestrial microwave and fiber technologies. Thus, from a plain reading of the Section   j628(b), Defendants argue that SportsNet is not satellite cable programming and falls outside the scope of   the program access laws. Accordingly, Comcast contends that the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear the instant dispute involving SportsNet.  S -  17. ` ` Assuming the Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case, Defendants challenge  S -  DIRECTV's claim that SportsNet is terrestrially delivered in order to evade the program access rules.8G E {O"-ԍId. at 17.8   According to Defendants, SportsNet constitutes a new and original programming service that cannot be   considered, in any logical sense, a continuation of SportsChannel. In support of its claim, Defendants  SX-  detail how SportsNet is different in ownership, management, name, and content from SportsChannel.9HXDE {O<-ԍId. at 15. 9   Defendants allege that SportsNet will telecast programming never before seen on SportsChannel or   ]PRISM, including various collegiate games, sports news shows, and a host of original and locally S-  produced shows.gIZE {OV-  ԍId. at 1516. Defendants acknowledge that SportsNet will carry the sixtyseven games previously covered by   SportsChannel. However, Defendants argue that this fact alone does not support the conclusion that SportsNet is a replacement to or somehow the equivalent of SportsChannel.g For example, Defendants assert that SportsChannel and SportsNet differ in the amount   >and extent of coverage. For the 19961997 sports season, SportsChannel carried a total of 67 games,   consisting of Philadelphia's professional sports teams. In contrast, for the 199798 sports season,   Defendants allege that SportsNet will telecast over 178 games, including professional and collegiate teams.   Defendants indicate that SportsNet will appear on Comcast's BST, at no additional cost to Comcast's cable  S-  subscribers.8J E {O!-ԍId. at 15.8 Considering these significant differences, Defendants state that SportsNet is neither a   replacement to, nor the equivalent of, SportsChannel. Therefore, Defendants argue that DIRECTV's   zevasion claim must fail, because SportsChannel was not "moved" to terrestrial distribution in order to  S-circumvent the program access rules.DK E {O%-ԍSee Id. at 2223D "x K,`(`(88"Ԍ S-  18. ` ` Defendants further claim that the creation of SportsNet does not have the purpose or effect   [of hindering development of MVPD competition in violation of Section 628(b). Defendants explain that   -their rationale for adopting terrestrial distribution for SportsNet was grounded in sound economics and cost   .analysis. First and foremost, Defendants state that terrestrial distribution is significantly less expensive  S`-  =than satellite distribution.iLZ`E {O-  ,ԍId. at 20. According to Comcast, terrestrial distribution of SportsNet costs approximately $600,000 per year,   whereas satellite distribution costs approximately $1,400,000 to $2,280,000 per year, depending upon the type of  yOZ-satellite transponder employed. i In this regard, Defendants point out that they had access to the preexisting  S8-  terrestrial infrastructure of PRISM to deliver SportsNet.3M8E {O -ԍId. 3 Further, SportsNet was being offered to the   same base of terrestrial operators that formerly distributed PRISM. As a microwave and fiberoptic cable   system was already in place, Defendants argue that it was both logistically simple and economical to adopt   terrestrial distribution for SportsNet. Second, Defendants claim that satellite distribution substantially  S-  Lincreases the costs of policing against signal theft.8N|E {O-ԍId. at 21.8 Third, Defendants believe there is no reason to incur   the higher costs associated with satellite distribution because SportsNet is a regional service of general  SH -interest only in the Greater Philadelphia market.2OH E {O-ԍId. 2  S -  219. ` ` Defendants raise several points why the adoption of terrestrial distribution for SportsNet   does not have the effect of hindering or preventing MVPDs from access to satellite cable programming   in violation of Section 628(b). Although acknowledging that DIRECTV and other DBS providers will not   have access to SportsNet, Defendants stress that other competing MVPDs in the Greater Philadelphia   imarket will have access to SportsNet. These competing MVPDs include MMDS, OVS providers, SMATV,  S0-  kas well as all local cable systems.<P0E {Op-ԍId. at 10, 22.< Furthermore, Defendants note that their actions do not absolutely   prevent DIRECTV, or any DBS provider, from offering Philadelphia sports programming to customers   located outside the Philadelphia market. Defendants explain that such "outofmarket" telecasting rights   0for professional sports are held by the respective professional leagues, not the owner of the local  S-  telecasting rights.>Q2 E {Ob-ԍId. at 4, n.2. > Therefore, Comcast argues that only DIRECTV's subscribers in the Philadelphia market could be potentially affected by the instant complaint.  S-  20. ` ` Defendants also dispute DIRECTV's allegation that its refusal to sell or negotiate the   distribution of SportsNet to DBS providers violates Section 628(c). Defendants again point to the plain   mlanguage of the statute, wherein the program access rules expressly apply to satellite delivered  S-  Kprogramming.8R E {O%-ԍId. at 11.8 Because SportsNet is terrestrially distributed, Defendants assert that it does not fall within  Sx-  the statute's definition of satellite cable programming.]SxV E {On'-ԍId. at 11; see 47 U.S.C.  605(d)(1).] Defendants further contest DIRECTV's"x S,`(`(88"   characterization of SportsNet as somehow the "equivalent of satellite cable programming" and thereby  S-  ksubject to the program access provisions.5TE yO@-ԍAnswer at 13.5 Defendants argue that there is no basis in law for such an  S-  interpretation, for it renders the term "satellite" in the statute meaningless.1UXE {O-ԍId.1 Defendants further state that   kthere is no basis in fact for such an interpretation, since there are significant substantive programming  S`-differences between SportsNet's terrestrial service and SportsChannel's satellite service.V`E {O-  ԍId. at 1316. Comcast believes that DIRECTV is attempting to treat SportsChannel and SportsNet as essentially the same service in the hopes that the latter will be treated as satellite cable programming.   S-  21. ` ` In addition, Defendants believe that DIRECTV, without proper justification, reads the term   [satellite cable programming expansively in order to apply the provisions of Section 628(c) to SportsNet.   Defendants argue that if a statute is unambiguous, as in this case, the clear meaning of the statute must  S-  be regarded as conclusive.8WDE {O|-ԍId. at 12.8 Defendants cite Congress' deliberate, consistent, and repeated use of the  Sp-  >phrase "satellite cable programming."2XpE {O-ԍId. 2 Defendants reason that if the Commission were to extend the   application of the statute to terrestrial programming, as DIRECTV argues, it would violate well established  S -  principles of statutory construction.}Y^ h E {O(-  <ԍId. at 12 (citing Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 84243 (1984);  {O-  Estate of Colwart v. Nicklose Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 476 (1992); Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE  {O-Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980).} Consequently, Defendants state that the Commission lacks   jurisdiction to hear DIRECTV's Section 628(c) claim, because the Commission "can only act within the  S -jurisdiction conferred by its enabling statute."9Z E yO-ԍAnswer at 7, n.7.9  S - V.DISCUSSION   S0-22. ` ` There appear to be three interrelated matters of dispute in this proceeding:   S- CX(1) Is the programming in question "satellite cable programming" so that Comcast's conduct is actionable under Section 628(c) of the program access rules?    XUU (2) Does the Commission have the authority to take action against evasions of the program access rules and, if so, is Comcast's conduct actionable as an evasion?(#   mXUU(3) Does Comcast's conduct involve unfair or anticompetitive action to deprive DIRECTV of "satellite cable programming" under Section 628(b)?(#  Sx-  23. ` ` Section 628 is generally understood to be a mechanism for ensuring that MVPDs that are   Ncompeting with traditional cable television systems are not deprived, through exclusive contracts,"P Z,`(`(88"   /discriminatory pricing, or otherwise, of access to vertically integrated "satellite cable programming."   Section 628(c)(2)(A) prohibits a cable operator from unduly or improperly influencing the decision of a   "satellite cable programming vendor" to sell, or the prices terms and conditions of sale, of satellite cable  S-  >programming to unaffiliated MVPDs.k[E yO-ԍCommunications Act  628(c)(2)(A), 47 U.S.C.  548 (c)(2)(A).k Section 628(c)(2)(B) prohibits a "satellite cable programming   vendor" in which a cable operator has an attributable interest from engaging in discrimination in the  S8-  jprices, terms or conditions of the sale or delivery of satellite cable programming to competing MVPDs.k\8XE yO0-ԍCommunications Act  628(c)(2)(B), 47 U.S.C.  548 (c)(2)(B).k   LDIRECTV has expressed its basic agreement with Comcast "that the applicability of these provisions . .   . hinges upon whether Comcast's vertically integrated affiliates, ComcastSpectacor, L.P. and Philadelphia  S-Sport Media, L.P., can be said to be `satellite cable programming vendors'. . ."4]E yOH -ԍReply at 18.4  Sp-  24. ` ` DIRECTV's complaint makes little effort to demonstrate that Comcast SportsNet is in fact   y"satellite cable programming." Rather, it argues that the Commission should find that the service "should  S -  0be made available as the equivalent of satellite cable programming."8^ xE yO8-ԍComplaint at 20.8 The essence of DIRECTV's   argument with respect to this point is elaborated on in reply comments where it notes that Section 628(i)   defines "satellite cable programming" by reference to Section 705 of the Communications Act, a provision  S -  "addressing signal piracy.>_ E yOP-ԍ47 U.S.C. 548(i).> Section 705 in turn defines "satellite cable programming" as "video   programming which is transmitted via satellite and which is primarily intended for the direct receipt by  SX-  cable operators for their retransmission to cable subscribers.";`XE yO-ԍ47 U.S.C. 605.; DIRECTV's argument then, with citations omitted is, is as follows:   #X. . . because Comcast SportsNet is not "transmitted via satellite," Comcast argues that the  network is not "satellite cable programming," and therefore is not subject to the program access provisions of Section 628(c).    XRead in a vacuum, Comcast's interpretation of the text of Section 705(d) would seem  S- plausible until Comcast's reading is placed in the context of the language, structure and  }purpose of Section 628. As the D.C. Circuit has observed, "while the immediate statutory  3text is the 'best evidence' of congressional intent, the Court has never held that it is the  Bonly such evidence." Other "indications of congressional intent" can create uncertainty  about Congress' intended scope of a particular term that requires deference to the  Commission's expert judgment and interpretation even when the text of the Communications Act is "superficiallyclear."    RԋXAlong these lines, the Commission resolves interpretive questions pertaining to the  4program access laws by relying on not just the language of the Act but also on (i) a" ( `,`(`(88<"  ocareful analysis of the structure of Section 628 of the 1992 Cable Act, (ii) its legislative  S- history, and the underlying policy objectives of the 1992 Cable Act. As the Commission  has observed, this "is the process that previously has been followed in implementing the  Cprovisions of the 1992 Cable Act and in developing a coherent set of rules for their  _enforcement." "Having made careful use of that process to assure that the various program  access provisions of the 1992 Cable Act fit together in a coordinated fashion," the failure  3of the Commission to follow that course now could lead to "anomalous results." First,  beginning with the text of Sections 628(i)(1) and 705(d)(1), the Commission need not  S- B"read the word `satellite' out of the statute," as Comcast suggests, in order to reach the  conduct at issue here. While DIRECTV believes that the Commission can and should  apply the program access rules to cable operators and vertically integrated programmers  regardless of the distribution technology employed, the Commission need not reach that  far on the instant facts, which present a clear and definable nexus of Comcast SportsNet  to "satellite cable programming." Specifically, Comcast admits that 67 sports games that  formerly were distributed via satellite on SportsChannel Philadelphia have now been  transitioned to Comcast SportsNet. Under such circumstances, the Commission can and  _should interpret "satellite cable programming" to encompass such programming, given that  SX-it previously was satellitedelivered.JaXD3 yO-ԍReply at 1921(emphasis original).J    S -  25. ` ` We do not find the argument that Section 628(c) was violated to be persuasive. The  S-  Supreme Court, in its Chevron decisionbXD3 {O-  ԍ Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). See also Estate  {O-  of Colwart v. Niclose Drilling Co.,505 U.S. 469, 476 (1992); Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania,  {On-  JInc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). In comments to the Commission in other proceedings, DIRECTV appears to agree  {O8-  that the plain language of the statute is conclusive. Comcast Answer at n. 14, citing Reply Comments of DIRECTV,  {O-  Inc., In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and   Competition Act of 1992Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and  {O-Carriage, MM Dkt. No. 92265 at 3.  speaks to the proper statutory interpretation analysis in situations such as this. That decision states:  RX[f]irst, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise  question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the  Bcourt, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of  QCongress. ... if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the  question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.    .We agree with DIRECTV that the applicability of Sections 628(c)(2)(A) and 628(c)(2)(B) "hinges upon   whether Comcast's vertically integrated affiliates, ComcastSpectacor, L.P. and Philadelphia Sports Media,  S-  \L.P., can be said to be `satellite cable programming vendors'. . ."4cD3 yOH%-ԍReply at 18.4 We believe that the correct reading   of Section 628(c) is that the provisions in question apply to satellite cable programming, not programming   =that was "previously" satellitedelivered or the "equivalent" of satellite cable programming. The statute" 4 c,`(`(88"  S-  defines "satellite cable programming" as that which is transmitted via satellite.QdD3 yOh-ԍ47 U.S.C. 605(d)(1)(emphasis added).Q This reading is consistent   ?with the legislative history of Section 628 which indicates that the version of the program access   provision that the Senate adopted would have extended to terrestriallydelivered programming services but  S-  kthe House bill, that was eventually adopted, did not.oeXD3 {O-ԍSee H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 862, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 913 (1993).o This indicates a specific intention to limit the  Sb-  scope of the provision to satellite services.efbD3 {O-  ԍINS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 44243 (1987) ("Few principles of statutory construction are more  {O -  compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has  {O -  earlier discarded in favor of other language."); Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 125 (1987) ("the legislative   history demonstrates with uncommon clarity that Congress specifically understood, considered and rejected" other language.)e Given the new content of the service in question it is also not clear that this is a service which can be considered "previously" distributed by satellite.  S-  26. ` ` The next question presented has to do with the scope of the Commission's authority to   act against evasions of Section 628 and whether the conduct of Comcast could in fact be considered an   evasion. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Commission has the authority to act against evasions  Sr-  jin some circumstances (an issue the Commission has considered elsewhere),grD3 {O-  ԍSee Report and Order, FCC 98189 at 71 (released Aug. 7, 1998). In the Report and Order, the Commission stated:  {O - _XThe record developed in this proceeding fails to establish that the conduct complained of, i.e.,  moving the transmission of programming from satellite to terrestrial delivery to avoid the program  access rules, is significant and causing demonstrative competitive harm at this time. The  ^Commission has received only two complaints against the same verticallyintegrated programmer  "related to moving the transmission of programming from satellite to terrestrial delivery to avoid  the program access rules. Where the record fails to indicate a significant competitive problem, we  are reluctant to promulgate general rules prohibiting activity particularly where reasonable issues  ^are raised regarding the scope of the statutory language. In circumstances where anticompetitive  harm has not been demonstrated, we perceive no reason to impose detailed rules on the movement  of programming from satellite delivery to terrestrial delivery that would unnecessarily inject the  Commission into the daytoday business decisions of verticallyintegrated programmers. While  the record does not indicate a significant anticompetitive impact necessitating Commission action  at this time, we believe that the issue of terrestrial distribution of programming could eventually  have substantial impact on the ability of alternative MVPDs to compete in the video marketplace.  2We note that Congress is considering legislation which, if enacted, would introduce important  @changes to the program access provisions, including clarification of the Commission's jurisdiction  over terrestriallydelivered programming. The Commission will continue to monitor this issue and its impact on competition in the video marketplace.   {M#-Id. we are not persuaded here that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates an intent to evade our rules. " dg,`(`(88 "Ԍ S-  B27.` ` Here, for instance, we find evidence that the service in question is not simply a service  S-  that has moved from satellite to terrestrial distribution but is in fact a new service.5hE yO@-ԍAnswer at 14.5 The majority of the   programming content on Comcast SportsNet is not duplicative of content on SportsChannel Philadelphia.   A significant amount of the sports content on the channel consists of sports events that were on PRISM,   a terrestrially delivered service, operating in the Philadelphia market for over two decades, that last season  S8-  distributed some 124 games of the Philadelphia Flyers, Philadelphia 76ers and the Philadelphia Phillies.7i8XE {O0-ԍId. at 2.7   In contrast, in its last year of operation, SportsChannel Philadelphia distributed 67 such games. Comcast  S-  >SportsNet is a brand new service in ownership, name, management, and content.7jE {Or -ԍId. at 3.7 It is described as   featuring more locallyproduced sports coverage including events, news, opinion, and programming  S-  Zthan any other regional sports network in the United States.1k|E {O-ԍId.1 As a further departure from its predecessors,  Sp-Comcast has returned 22 games of the Philadelphia 76ers back to broadcast television.;lpE {O-ԍId. at 3, 16.;  S -  28. ` ` In addition, according to Comcast, the terrestrial distribution of this service is  S -  y"dramatically less expensive than satellite distribution."7m E {O8-ԍId. at 5.7 An affidavit filed by Comcast, indicates that it   =costs approximately $600,000 per year to deliver the Comcast SportsNet service terrestrially. The cost   of delivering the service would be approximately $2,280,000 per year using a full band satellite   transponder, $1,400,000 using a second tier satellite transponder, or between $720,000 and $900,000 using  SX-  ]shared digital capacity.;nX2 E {O*-ԍId. at 2021.; In addition, a one time cost of $250,000 for an uplink facility would be   required plus $24,000 a year to uplink and a cost of $190,000 for encoding the signal prior to uplinking   !it and decoding at the headend of the individual recipients. Although not cited as an extra cost by   NComcast, DIRECTV itself notes if it received the service it "might be willing to share the costs of   /transporting the programming to Castle Rock, Colorado, where DIRECTV's satellite uplink center is  S-  located."8o E yO-ԍComplaint at 14.8 The terrestrial infrastructure used by PRISM, according to Comcast, "had available capacity   .and the base of operators receiving the Service is substantially that same as that which received PRISM,  S@-  \so use of that network became a logistically simple and economical choice."4p@T E yO4#-ԍAnswer at 5.4 None of these facts are disputed by DIRECTV.   S-  ` 29.` ` Given all these facts, including the differences between the old and the new service, the   incorporation of the old PRISM terrestrially delivered content and distribution process, and the"p,`(`(88#"   unchallenged cost advantages of terrestrial distribution, we cannot conclude that evasive conduct is involved.  S-  30.` ` The final argument that DIRECTV makes is that Comcast's conduct violates Section 628(b) of the Communications Act. This provision reads as follows:  QX It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which  a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor  3to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the  purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video  programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers.   S -  n31. ` ` Although set out only very roughly in the complaint, which focuses mainly on the evasion   question, the explication of this argument in its reply pleading seems to be that Sportschannel Philadelphia   was a "satellite cable programming vendor" and that it was "unfair" for Comcast, as a cable operator, to   .have acquired rights to programming on this service, used that content to create a new terrestrial service, and thereby deprived DIRECTV of access to Sportschannel Philadelphia.  S-  Q32. ` ` We are not persuaded that the facts alleged are sufficient to constitute a Section 628(b)   zviolation. In order to find a violation of Section 628(b), the Commission must make two independent   Ldeterminations. First, the Commission must determine that the defendant has engaged in unfair methods   jof competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Second, the Commission must determine that the   unfair acts or practices, if found, had the purpose or effect of hindering significantly or preventing a   yMVPD from providing satellite cable programming to subscribers or consumers. Here, we do not believe   that the record supports a conclusion that Comcast has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts in creating,  S-  packaging and distributing Comcast SportsNet.FqXE yOX-  ԍBecause we do not find Comcast's actions to be unfair or deceptive, we need not address whether such actions   >had the purpose or effect of hindering significantly or preventing a MVPD from providing satellite cable programming to subscribers or consumers.F In enacting Section 628, Congress determined that while   cable operators generally must make available to competing MVPDs verticallyintegrated programming   that is satellite delivered, they do not have a similar obligation with respect to programming that is   terrestrially delivered. DIRECTV's argument would have us find that it is somehow unfair for a cable   operator to move a programming service from satellite delivery to terrestrial delivery if it means that a   competing MVPD may no longer be afforded access to the service. We find no evidence in Section 628   that Congress intended such a result. Congress did not prohibit cable operators from delivering any   particular type of service terrestrially, did not prohibit cable operators from moving any particular service   from satellite to terrestrial delivery, and did not provide that program access obligations remain with a   programming service that has been so moved. Thus, given our prior finding that Comcast's actions do   not amount to an attempt to evade our rules, we decline to find that, standing alone, Comcast's decision   Lto deliver Comcast SportsNet terrestrially and to deny that programming to DIRECTV is "unfair" under Section 628(b).  S!-   33.` ` Section 628(b) remains, as the Commission has stated previously, "a clear repository of   zCommission jurisdiction to adopt additional rules or to take additional action to accomplish statutory   objectives should additional types of conduct emerge as barriers to competition and obstacles to the"p#q,`(`(88$"  S-  broader distribution of satellite cable and broadcast programming."brE {Oh-ԍProgram Access Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 3374.b It cannot, however, be converted  S-  into a tool that, on a per se basis, precludes cable operators from exercising competitive choices that Congress deemed legitimate.  S-  [%I?   Sb- VI.ORDERING CLAUSES  S-  !34. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the complaint filed in CSR 5112P by DIRECTV IS DENIED.  S-  _"35. ` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.  ` ` ` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  ` `  Deborah A. Lathen ` `  Chief, Cable Services Bureau