WPC 2fBJZlCourier3|j  QSx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\&NX@ S'#X\  P6G;QwP##&a\  P6G;r&P#2KXKSCourierTimes New Roman"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNI\\>>>\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\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2 K Z+  3|j  "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$CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRS 4Xj\  P6G;\&NXP Y4 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) A 1. a. a.(1)(a) i) a)phoenix#XP\  P6QXP#2B ro C $ Ethan Frome EW/LN/CBJacqueline Ponti, Chief Information OfficerEthanHeading 1Heading 1 heading 2heading 2X` hp x (#` hp x (# heading 3heading 3X` hp x (#` hp x (#` hp x (#X` hp x (#2theading 4heading 4X` hp x (# hp x (# hp x (#X` hp x (#heading 5heading 5X` hp x (#hp x (#hp x (#X` hp x (#heading 6heading 6X` hp x (#hp x (#hp x (#X` hp x (#heading 7heading 7X` hp x (#p x (#p x (#X` hp x (#2+ < lZ eheading 8heading 8X` hp x (#p x (#p x (#X` hp x (#heading 9heading 9 X` hp x (#p x (#p x (#X` hp x (#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font footnote referencefootnote reference 2! l] @v @ Double SpaceDouble Space footerfooter X` hp x (# (# footnote textfootnote text headerheaderX` hp x (# (# 2#v!vg"v"vS#ListList List BulletList Bullet List Bullet 2List Bullet 2 List NumberList Number 2%v#vq$v$r]%Normal IndentNormal Indent Single SpaceSingle Space Double IndentDouble Indent endnote referenceendnote reference 2)+v&vw&& )endnote textendnote text index 1index 1 toc 1toc 1X` hp x (#(#`(#`X` hp x (#toc 2toc 2X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#23[+y-/1toc 3toc 3X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#toc 4toc 4X` hp x (# (# (#X` hp x (#toc 5toc 5X` hp x (#h(#h(#X` hp x (#toc 6toc 6X` hp x (#h(#h(#X` hp x (#2: 4!#6"A8#v_:toc 7toc 7 X` hp x (#(#(#X` hp x (#toc 8toc 8!X` hp x (#p(#p(#X` hp x (#toc 9toc 9"X` hp x (#p(#p(#X` hp x (#index 2index 2# 2<$v;%v};&v;'vi<index 3index 3$ index 4index 4% index 5index 5& index 6index 6' 2>(v=)v=*v=+vs>index 7index 7( index 8index 8) index 9index 9* index headingindex heading+ 2A,b?-}?.@?/v?Apage numberpage number, Body Text 2Body Text 2-  NUMBERNUMBER.X` hp x (# hp x (#Body Text Indent 2Body Text Indent 2/ 2C0vA1p]B2kB3k8Ca8DocumentgDocument Style Style0XX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style1 . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style2 GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style3 }X(# 2E4C5vzD6tD7dEa2DocumentgDocument Style Style4<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style Style5yXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography6:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers7:`S@ I.  X(# 2H80F9F:zG;&Ha2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style9B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers;Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2=L< I=I>J?dKa5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers<_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=h` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>pfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?yW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2MO@oLAoMB?NCNTech InitInitialize Technical Style@. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style StyleA\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document StyleB)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document StyleC)D (a) . 2v|q{t}qt~p]uqu6|EF7}GH8Document Style~ab` ` ` 9Document Stylec d . 2=xepvev:wpw10Document Style ef 11Document Style gh 12Document Style*ij   13Document Stylekl` ` ` 2zoxyy1z14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8mn@   15Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersAop@` `  ` ` ` 16Document Style0q r    17Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJst@  ` `  2}{{j|)}18Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersSuv@  19Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\wx@hh# hhh 20Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberseyz@( hh# 21Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn{|@- ( 2#~~322Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw}~@pp2 -ppp 23Document StyleF *  ׃  24Technical Document Style&  . 25Technical Document Style&  . 2_26Technical Document Style*    27Technical Document Style'   28Technical Document Style&   29Technical Document Style4$     2e30Technical Document Style&  . 31Technical Document Style&  . Quick A. . 32g/2 >WN6wDTechnical Document Style >bW(*(&g/2 >bd(*(&g/2 >be(*(&g/2 >bv(*(&g/2 >#V\  P)UP# #Xj\  P*G;XP#33g/2 >~N6wD| ?'=((P >b~(*(&g/2 >N6wD| ?'=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wD | ?'=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >46g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >N6wDRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers(*(&g/2 >N6wDDocument Style=((P >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 >N6wDTechnical Document Style >b(*(&g/2 > | ?'=(((*(&a262 | ?'=(((*(&A.2ZZa a362 | ?'=(((*(&1.a462 | ?'=(((*(&a.a562 | ?'=(((*(&P a662 | ?'=(((*(&[ 2DqyZa762 | ?'=(((*(&f a862 | ?'=(((*(&q a163| ?'=((P >b(*(&a263| ?'=((P >b(*(&A.2 ZvZОq*qa363| ?'=((P >b(*(&1.a463| ?'=((P >b(*(&a.a563| ?'=((P >b(*(&a663| ?'=((P >b(*(&2q>q ڡa763| ?'=((P >b(*(&a863| ?'=((P >b(*(&Document 8Document 811#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Document 4Document 477#XP\  P6QXP#  #Xv6X@CX@#2lҢlFDocument 6Document 611#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Document 5Document 511#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Document 2Document 2 Document 7Document 711#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#28Xl~Right Par 1Right Par 111#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Right Par 2Right Par 211#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Document 3Document 3 Right Par 3Right Par 311#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#2Rj$ީRight Par 4Right Par 411#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Right Par 5Right Par 511#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Right Par 6Right Par 611#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Right Par 7Right Par 711#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#2گ(>f Right Par 8Right Par 811#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Document 1Document 1X` hp x (#` hp x (#` hp x (#X` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 511#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Technical 6Technical 611#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#2 l lxlTechnical 2Technical 2 Technical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 411#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Technical 1Technical 1 2D<vεTechnical 7Technical 711#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Technical 8Technical 811#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#toa headingtoa headingX` hp x (#(#(#X` hp x (#captioncaption 2ѻvC0Ks_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XP\  P6QXP##Xv6X@CX@#Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldSymbolTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""A.SSxSSJR"RNOxxSxS8JSVSSSSS;88VVS++SSfSSxSc]]8VS;xxSxdS]ddq]^^^z0^88^^^zxzzzgg+E]S^/zU*FvggxxzzzzKggqU^^^zxxxxzzK|lr]iAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]c|YoSxJ^_^efx]ff|i{8SxfJffff88SSSS2fK)Kt\ K"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN (early termination of review granted Dec. 16, 1998).(#  XH44. ` ` Applicants assert that this transaction will provide consumers several far reaching benefits. They first assert that it will give EchoStar the capacity to offer consumers national programming, local programming, high definition television ( HDTV), dataenriched video entertainment, highspeed access to the Internet and other broadband services through the use of a single, customer provided, earth satellite antenna, thereby promoting effective  X 4competition in the MVPD market.  Bu yO' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar/MCI Application at 56. The parties assert that recent technological developments will allow a  "& consumer to receive two DBS signals from a single earth station antenna, thus allowing EchoStar to transmit  yOX' " DBS signals from both its existing authorizations at 101o W.L. and its proposed authorizations at 110o W.L. to its existing customers.(# Applicants claim that, in order to truly compete with dominant cable operators in the MVPD market, they must be able to offer local signals (including HDTV) to a substantial percentage of American households as well as to offer  X4other HDTV programming, dataenriched video entertainment, highspeed Internet access X* u yOk' " #C\  P6QQwP#эXAs to prospective Internet services, the parties also note, however, that because of the oneway nature of  " DBS transmission, it will be necessary to have an alternative return channel to achieve interactivity, which will require additional capacity. EchoStar/MCI Application at 16, n.35.(#ơ  Xy4and various other data services.yJ u yOt'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar/MCI Application at 1617.(#Ɣ Applicants also submit that EchoStar's acquisition of 110$ W.L. would allow EchoStar to provide seamless offerings to consumers through a single earth  XK4station antenna. They assert that because the 110$ W.L. slot is located in the middle of the three U.S. highpower DBS slots, it can be used to send signals to DBS receiving antennas  X4already pointed to satellites in either the 101$ W.L. or 119$ W.L. orbital location.,u {O#' "" #X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar/MCI Application at 17 and n.37 citing United States v. Primestar, Inc., et al., Complaint in Civil File No. 1:98CV01193 (JLG) at  83 (D.D.C. May 12, 1998).(#, As a result, they claim, all current DBS subscribers in the country could receive signals from a"40*&&aa"  X4satellite in the 110$ W.L. slot without having to purchase and install a second separate earth  X4station receive antenna.iu {Ob'#C\  P6QQwP#эXId.(#i Applicants cite additional benefits, including allowing EchoStar to expedite DBS service to customers in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and enabling EchoStar to put promptly to use the onechannel assignment of its affiliate Directsat Corporation at  X4110$ W.L.Zu {O' "h #X\  P6G;QwP#эXSee Directsat Corp. 10 FCC Rcd. 88 (1995) (granting application for transfer of control of Directsat Corporation from SSE Telecom, Inc. to EchoStar Communications Corp.).(#    Xv4 5. ` ` Several parties filed petitions to deny, comments in support, or requested imposition of conditions. The Small Cable Business Association (SCBA), the United Church  XH4of Christ et al. (UCC), and PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (PrimeTime 24) contend, for separate reasons, that the Joint Application should be denied. SCBA opposes the applications on several grounds, alleging that grant of the applications would harm cable operators and local  X 4broadcast stations.s u yOj'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Petition at 3.(#s UCC contends that Applicants have failed to satisfy the Commission's  X 4qualification requirements.u Du yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXUCC Petition at 23. (#u PrimeTime 24 urges denial of the Joint Application on the grounds that EchoStar is contractually barred from providing certain of the services it  X 4proposes.} u yOE'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXPrimeTime 24 Petition at 23.(#} Finally, while not directly addressing the merits of the Joint Application, Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) asserts that the Joint Application contains unfounded attacks on  X4the cable industry.yd u yO'#C\  P6QQwP#эXTimeWarner Comments at 2.(#y  Xd46. ` ` In contrast, the DOJ urges expeditious grant of the Joint Application, asserting  XM4that grant would increase competition in the MVPD market.rM u yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXDOJ Comments at 1.(#r In addition, while not opposing the Joint Application, the State of Hawaii (Hawaii) and CoreComm Limited (CoreComm) ask that a grant be conditional. Hawaii requests assurances that consumers in Hawaii will be able to use small, 1824 inch receiving dishes and that EchoStar continue to be obligated to serve  X4Hawaii from its authorization at 148o W.L., even if it serves Hawaii from the 110o W.L. orbital location. CoreComm seeks assurances that EchoStar and News Corp. will not enter into any exclusive programming arrangements, and that other MVPDs continue to have access to News Corp.'s programming. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that it is in the public interest to grant the Joint Application without conditions and do so today." 0*&&aa"Ԍ  X' III.DISCUSSION  X'A.` ` Legal Standard  X47. ` ` Under Section 310(d) of the Communications Act, we must find that the proposed assignment serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity before we can  X_4approve the assignment of authorizations or licenses .v_u yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эX47 U.S.C.  310(d).(#v To make this finding, we must weigh any potential public interest harms against any potential public interest benefits, considering competitive effects and other public interest factors such as rapid delivery of service to the  X 4public.$ Xu {O# ' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXSouthern New England Telecommunications Corp., Inc. 13 FCC Rcd. 21292, 21298 (1998) (granting  " application for transfer control of Southern New England Telecommunications Corp. to SBC  {O' " Communications, Inc.); MCI Communications Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 18025, 18030 (1998) (granting application for transfer control of MCI Communications Corp. to WorldCom Inc.).(# As we explained earlier this year in the TCI/AT&T case: X"[O]ur public interest analysis is not, however, limited by traditional antitrust principles. . . . It also encompasses the broad aims of the Communications Act. . . . To apply our public interest test, then, we must determine whether the merger violates our rules, or would otherwise frustrate our implementation or enforcement of the Communications Act and federal communications policy. That policy is, of course, shaped by Congress and deeply rooted in a preference  Xb4for competitive processes and outcomes."&bDu {OW' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXTeleCommunications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, CS Docket No. 98178, FCC 9924 at  14  {O!' " (released February 18, 1999) (granting application for transfer of control of TeleCommunications, Inc. to  {O' " AT&T Corp.). See also United States Satellite Broadcasting Co., Inc. Order and Authorization, DA 98225 (released April 1, 1999).(#   X448. ` ` Consistent with this precedent, we begin our analysis by identifying the  X4relevant product markets that are affected by the proposed transaction.$2 u {O' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXSee, e.g., NYNEX Corp., 12 FCC Rcd. 19985, 20008 (1997) (granting application for transfer of control of  {O' " NYNEX Corp. to Bell Atlantic Corp.); Teleport Communications Group, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 15236, 15245  " (1998) (granting application for transfer of control of Teleport Communications Group, Inc. to AT&T Corp.). Each product market is defined by a geographic component.(# Then we consider the competitive effects of the proposed transaction in these markets. Finally, we consider a number of other issues raised by parties that factor into a public interest determination. "0*&&aaT"Ԍ X' B.` ` Effects on competition   V4X` p x (#%'0*,.8135@8: e yOy'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Reply at 2122.(#t  X423. ` ` In support of its request for conditions, CoreComm refers to the experience of its British affiliate, NTL, Inc. (NTL), in dealing with News Corp.'s British affiliate, British Sky Broadcasting ( BSkyB), in the United Kingdom. CoreComm alleges that BSkyB has systematically prevented NTL and other providers of multichannel video services from  Xv4gaining access to certain programming in the United Kingdom.?vX e yO ' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXCoreComm Request at 1112 (citing Director Generals Review of BSkyBs Position in the Wholesale Pay TV Market (December 1996)). (# CoreComm is concerned that News Corp.'s entry into the DBS market via EchoStar could have similar anticompetitive  XH4consequences for MVPDs in the U.S.@H e yO ' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXIn support of its factual allegations, CoreComm cites portions of a 1996 report issued by the Director  " General of the Office of Fair Trading ( OFT), an U.K. antitrust authority. In its reply comments,  "< CoreComm also attaches a more recent decision in which the U.K.s Independent Television Commission  " ( ITC) announced a general prohibition on minimum carriage requirements or tiering for subscription television channels. CoreComm Reply at 1213.(#Ɓ  X 424. ` ` In reply, News Corp. questions the relevancy of what it views as a series of commercial disputes between CoreComm's U.K. affiliate and BSkyB, a publicly held company in which News Corp. holds a minority interest. News Corp. notes that the Commission historically does not become involved in private contractual disputes, especially  X 4those governed by the law of another country.A ` e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXNews Corp. Opposition at 1112.(# News Corp. also takes issue with CoreComms characterization of OFTs findings. In addition, News Corp. argues that even if  X4CoreComms allegations about BSkyB's actions were true, they are irrelevant.B e yO1'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXNews Corp. Opposition at 1213.(# News Corp. points out that it lacks control of BSkyB and that BSkyB, rather than News Corp., holds all  Xb4the programming rights at issue. Thus, BSkyBs actions cannot be attributed to News Corp.|Cb e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXNews Corp. Opposition at 12.(#| EchoStar also questions the relevancy of CoreComm's concern because it has not entered into any exclusive contracts with News Corp. and asserts that it does not have the market power to  X4force News Corp. into such arrangements.zD e yO"'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar Opposition at 20.(#z  X425. ` ` We are unpersuaded by CoreComm and SCBA's arguments for several reasons. First, the statutory provisions for program access conditions were enacted by Congress after"D0*&&aa" extensive hearings and findings that horizontal concentration in the cable industry combined with extensive integration (i.e., combined ownership of cable systems and programming suppliers), created an imbalance of power, both between cable operators and programming  X4vendors and between cable operators and their MVPD competitors.E e {O4' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXSee, e.g., Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and  {O'Competition Act of 1992, 8 FCC Rcd 3359, 3366 (1993).(# The current record does not reflect a similar imbalance of power here: between EchoStar and programming vendors or between EchoStar and its MVPD competitors.  X_426. ` ` Second, CoreComm has mentioned that News Corp. holds attributable interests in a number of satellitedelivered programming services. As such, CoreComm is concerned that the proposed assignment might result in News Corp. giving EchoStar exclusivity to News Corp.'s attributable programming services or, at a minimum, giving EchoStar preferable treatment with regard to such programming. However, according to News Corp.'s unchallenged assertion, nearly all of its attributable programming services are covered by the  X 4Commission's program access rules,yF $ e yO' "E #X\  P6G;QwP#эXIn Exhibit B of its Opposition, News Corp. lists cable programming entities in which it has attributable  "c ownership. These are the following: Fox/Liberty Networks cable entities, Fox Sports Net, Rainbow Media  " Holdings, Home Team Sports, Sunshine Network, FiT TV, Fox Sports International, and FX, in addition  "/ to The Golf Channel and Fox Kids Worldwide, including The Family Channel. According to News Corp.,  " all of these entities are deemed to be "vertically integrated" for purposes of the Commission's program  yO' " access rules. Also listed in Exhibit B are Fox News Channel and "fXM: Movies from Fox," cable  "< programming services that New Corp. also has attributable interest, but according to News Corp., are not  " deemed to be vertically integrated and thus not subject to the program access rules. Following the merger  "I of TCI with AT&T, AT&T will own all the common stock of Liberty Media Corporation and all the equity  {O' "P interest of New Liberty Media Group. See AT&T proxy to its shareholders,  " http://www.att.com/ir/ep/tci_merger/pr_proposed_transactions.html. As a result of the proposed transaction,  " Liberty Media Corporation will acquired 8% of News Corp.'s diluted outstanding shares. Consequently  " News Corp. submits that the two programming services that are not currently vertically integrated Fox  " News Channel and fXM: Movies from Fox will become vertically integrated and thus subject to our  {O'program access rules. See News Corp. Ex Parte Filing (April 22, 1999).(#y which prohibits unfair or discriminatory practices in the sale of programming by, among others, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable  X 4operator has an attributable interest.~G  e {O'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSee supra note 39.(#~ Therefore, as News Corp. correctly notes, the Commission's rules provide MVPDs an avenue for redress if they believe a New Corp.  Xy4programming arrangement involves price discrimination or unfair practices.Hy: e yOd"'#X\  P6G;QwP#эX47 C.F.R.  76.1000.1003.(#Ƈ Consequently, we will not impose the conditions that CoreComm requests. Although a few programming services may not be covered by the program access rules, we will not apply program access conditions in the instant proceeding to address these few services."4H0*&&aa"Ԍ X4ԙ27. ` ` Finally, in addition to subscription programming, News Corp. also has an interest in the broadcast programming distributed by the Fox television network. SCBA  X4surmises that Fox owned and affiliated television stations might withhold retransmission  X4consent from other MVPDs competing with EchoStar.tI e yO4'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Reply at 2122.(#t We find no basis for SCBA's concern. The Commission's rules prohibit exclusive retransmission consent agreements  X4between a television station and any MVPD.xJX e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эX47 C.F.R.  76.64(m).(#x Therefore, should a situation arise whereby it appears that News Corp. has violated the Commission's exclusive retransmission prohibition, interested parties are always free to bring their concerns to our attention via the Commission's  XJ4complaint process.  V 4  ` ` 5. Pending Litigation(#`  X 428. ` ` PrimeTime 24 opposes the Joint Application, alleging that EchoStar has breached its exclusive network programming contract to offer only PrimeTime 24's retransmitted broadcast television programming to EchoStar's subscribers. PrimeTime 24 claims that EchoStar, in breach of this contract, substituted its own retransmitted broadcast network programming. PrimeTime 24 further claims that EchoStar has also refused to pay PrimeTime 24 programming fees that were accrued prior to the breach. PrimeTime 24 contends that it will prevail in a suit it has filed against EchoStar, seeking both damages and specific performance of the contract. Thus, according to PrimeTime 24, it would be futile  X64for the Commission to approve the Assignment of the 110$ W.L. orbital slot as EchoStar 110 requests; EchoStar 110 ultimately will not be able to use the slot as it now asserts it plans to  X4use it.}K e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXPrimeTime 24 Petition at 23.(#} Notwithstanding its pending suit, PrimeTime 24 argues that until its litigation is concluded, granting the Joint Application will enable EchoStar to greatly expand its network capacity, albeit temporarily, and thus increase EchoStar's injury to PrimeTime 24 as result of  X4EchoStar's breach of contract.Lx e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXPrimeTime 24 Reply at 23.(#ƀ Because of this increased risk, PrimeTime 24 argues that it  X4has standing to petition the Commission to deny the EchoStar/MCI Application.M e yOe '#X\  P6G;QwP#эXPrimeTime 24 Reply at 23.hhC(#Ɖ   X~429.` ` Applicants respond that PrimeTime 24 lacks standing in this proceeding"~M0*&&aa"  X4because it is not a party in interest under Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act,NX e yOy' "c #X\  P6G;QwP#эXThe Communications Act provides that [a]ny party in interest may file with the Commission a petition to  "< deny an application.... The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest.... 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).(#ƥ and cite our longstanding policy of refusing to adjudicate private contract issues of the kind  X4raised by PrimeTime 24.O^ e {Ok' "l #X\  P6G;QwP#эXListeners Guild, Inc. v. FCC, 813 F.2d 465, 469 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also Stockholders of Renaissance  {O5' " Communications Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd. 11866, 11869 (1997); Northwest Broadcasting, Inc., 12 FCC  {O'Rcd. 3289, 3293 (1997); WHOATV, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd. 20041, 20042 (1996). (# We find both arguments advanced by Applicants persuasive.  X430. ` ` PrimeTime 24 fails to meet the threshold requirements for standing. It does not allege personal injury that is "fairly traceable" to our granting the applications and that there  Xv4is a substantial likelihood that our denial of the applications will redress the injury claimed.Pv e {O5'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXMCI Telecommunications Corp., 12FCC Rcd. 7790, 7793 (1997).(#Ƣ PrimeTime 24 has failed to specify how it believes it would be harmed by the proposed assignment. It has simply alleged that denial of the applications would inhibit EchoStar from  X14engaging in certain conduct alleged to breach a programming contract.FQL1 e yO' "_ #X\  P6G;QwP#эXPrimeTime 24 Response at 3. Not being a member of the consuming public, PrimeTime 24 cannot avail  {OJ' "I itself of the expansion of standing to the consuming public under Office of Communication of the United  {O' " Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994, 10021006 (D.C. Cir. 1966), see, e.g., FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio  {O' " Station, 309 U.S. 470 (1940); FCC v. National Broadcasting Co., 319 U.S. 239 (1943) (progenitors of the  {O' "< Communications Acts standing rules); see also The Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 68 FCC 2d 129, 136  {Or' " (1978), vacated on other grounds, 67 FCC 2d 1503 (1978) (no standing where party met neither consuming  {O<' "l public status under United Church of Christ nor the established grounds of electrical interference or economic injury).(#F Nor has PrimeTime 24 submitted any documented proof that its success in the pending litigation would, aside from possibly curbing to some degree localintolocal service, prohibit EchoStar from using additional spectrum for purposes PrimeTime 24 does not challenge, such as providing EchoStar's subscribers the many other services EchoStar proposes, such as HDTV programming and highspeed Internet access. In any event, even if PrimeTime 24 had standing, we would find that its assertions, if proven true, would not raise public interest concerns sufficient to deny the application. PrimeTime 24 raises a private contractual dispute that is currently pending before a federal court, and we will not adjudicate private contractual matters where an alternative forum exists to resolve the matter and the contractual dispute  XK4does not bear on the public interest.jRXK e {O"' "p #X\  P6G;QwP#эXListeners Guild, 813 F.2d at 469. Both cases cited by PrimeTime 24 in its Response, Telephone and Data  {Oz#' " Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 19 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 1994), and Granik v. FCC, 234 F.2d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1956), are  {OD$' "3 inapposite. In those cases, third parties with contractual interests in licensees were found to have standing.  " Here, PrimeTime 24 has no interest in EchoStar, but merely has an unrelated contractual dispute with  {O%' " EchoStar. Moreover, unlike the claims raised in Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. and Granik, the"%Q0*&&%"  "c contractual dispute raised by PrimeTime 24 is not relevant to the Commission's determination whether the  "t public interest, convenience and necessity would be served by grant of the application and the alleged injury is not traceable to the Commission's action here. (#j Nor do we consider such matters a persuasive reason to"KR0*&&aa" deny the Joint Application.  V4` ` 6. Potential harm to Terrestrial Broadcasters and Small Cable Operators(#`  X4  X431. ` ` SCBA, in its petition to deny, contends that the proposed acquisition threatens the financial viability of the nation's 1,150 local broadcasters. Further, it states that because the primary source of small cable operators' service offerings is programming produced by local broadcasters, any reduction in programming resulting from a diminution in local  XH4broadcasters' revenues will harm SCBA's members.sSH e yO '#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Petition at 3.(#s SCBA claims that the harm will result in two ways: through the selective carriage of broadcast stations and through the illegal  X 4importation of television signals.tT x e yOC'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Petition at 6. (#t  X 432. ` ` SCBA argues that local broadcasters in larger markets will suffer from the fact  X 4that EchoStar 's acquisition of an additional 28 frequency channels will enable it to retransmit only the signals of affiliates of the nation's four most popular networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, in the top 100 markets. Consequently, SCBA reasons that this capacity limitation threatens the financial viability of broadcasters in these markets that are not carried by EchoStar, namely emerging networks, local PBS, and independent stations, which tend to  Xb4offer programming oriented toward unique local community needs.sUb e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Petition at 7.(#s  X44 33. ` ` SCBA also contends that granting the Joint Application will cause harm to local broadcasters serving smaller markets. SCBA contends that satellite carriers, including EchoStar, have demonstrated a pervasive disregard for the distant signal importation limit of the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), which restricts delivery of network television  X4programming to "unserved households."VX e yO! ' "} #X\  P6G;QwP#эXThe term "unserved household" is defined by SHVA as a household that cannot receive, through the use  " of a conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna, an overtheair signal of grade B intensity of a primary network station affiliated with that network. 17 U.S.C.  119(d)(10)(A). (#Ơ According to SCBA, these violations cause nominal harm to broadcasters in small markets because their viewers have little interest in local programming retransmitted from distant major markets. In other words, signals from cities in other parts of the nation are not good substitutes for programming produced locally. However, adds SCBA, EchoStar's additional capacity will enable it to carry the signals of"| V0*&&aa" many more major markets. Consequently, says SCBA, there will be a large number of instances in which consumers will be able to receive signals from a major market that is close to their homes. In those cases, asserts SCBA, DBS would be sufficiently appealing to persuade viewers to look to DBS, rather than their local broadcasters, for local  X4programming.sW e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Petition at 8.(#s SCBA also asserts that EchoStar already has demonstrated readiness to violate SHVA, and allowing EchoStar to acquire an additional 28 channels will provide it with the capacity to commit even more violations. Moreover, SCBA asserts that economic necessity will compel EchoStar to resort to widespread localintolocal dissemination of selected broadcast signals in order to recover the $1.25 billion that it will need to spend in order to utilize the 28 channels. This activity, they argue, will surely result in numerous  X 4SHVA violations.tX X e yO# '#X\  P6G;QwP#эXSCBA Petition at 15.(#t  X 4!34. ` ` We find that SCBA's petition to deny fails to meet the criteria of Section  X 4309(d)(1) of the Communications Act.yY  e yOn'#X\  P6G;QwP#эX47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).(#y That provision of the Act states that when a petition to deny is filed it must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that a grant of  X 4the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest.yZ x e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эX47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).(#y SCBA fails to meet this obligation for several reasons.  Xd4"35. ` ` First, SCBA has failed to establish a link between the perceived harms of selective localintolocal carriage and the public interest. Cable operators and DBS operators compete in the same markets and at present, cable operators rather than DBS operators tend to  X4dominate those markets.[ e X4ԍX#X\  P6G;QwP#See earlier discussion on the current status of competition in the affected markets.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(# Thus, if our grant of EchoStar's request allows it to offer a closer substitute to cable operator's offerings, then, by implication, some cable operators may suffer adverse economic impacts because of the increased competition. The public interest, however, is in insuring robust competition and not in protecting the financial interests of particular firms. In this particular instance, consumers will benefit from the increased competition.  X4#36. ` ` Second, terrestrial broadcasters supply programming that is sufficiently important to consumers that DBS operators seek to retransmit their programming in order to better compete with cable operators. Recent data suggest that the prime time viewing share of"g[0*&&aa"  X4broadcast television is on average 64 percent.Q\ e yOy' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXThis figure represents the season to date (March 1521, 1999) average of network prime time viewing share,  {OA'and is taken from figures reported in Broadcasting & Cable magazine (March 29, 1999) on page 40.(#Q Consequently, terrestrial broadcasters are supplying programming that consumers like enough that DBS operators would find it advantageous to retransmit terrestrial broadcast television signals. In fact, surveys show that a significant number of consumers would subscribe to the services of a DBS operator rather  X4than a cable operator if the DBS operator carried local broadcast television signals.]" e {Ow'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar/MCI Application at 12, and 1997 Cable Competition Report, 13 FCC Rcd. at 1041.(#ƽ Consequently, DBS operators have a strong incentive to carry local broadcast television signals in order to compete with cable operators. A major constraint on DBS operators from supplying such programming is the capacity limitations of existing DBS assignments. Grant of EchoStar's application for 28 additional DBS channels will ease this constraint for EchoStar and permit it to provide such service to consumers.  X 4$37. ` ` Third, SCBA's allegations concerning its perceived harm to broadcasters in smaller markets are based on the supposition that EchoStar has violated SHVA and will continue to do so. EchoStar denies it has violated or that it has any intention of violating SHVA. Moreover, Applicants submit that this Commission is not the proper forum for  X 4determining whether or not an entity is in compliance with SHVA.^  e yO '#X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar/MCI Joint Opposition at 8. (#Ƅ We agree. We are, nonetheless, aware of the fact that EchoStar is involved in pending litigation concerning its  Xy4compliance with SHVA._yD e {On' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXSee, e.g., CBS Broadcasting, Inc. et. al. v.EchoStar Communications Corp.,  Civil Action No. 982651CIVMIDDLEBROOKS (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 1998).(# We do not, however, consider these lawsuits to be sufficient basis for us to conclude that EchoStar will intentionally violate SHVA to the detriment of local broadcasters. In any event, speculation about future violations of SHVA does not provide a basis for denying the Joint Application.  X4# footnote reference#)1 footnote reference)  X4%38. ` ` Finally, we note that no broadcaster sought to deny the Joint Application at issue because of the harms SCBA alleges will accrue to them by our grant of the Joint Application. While SCBA asserts that this is because FOX, a party with interest in the proposed transaction, is a member of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), this argument is not persuasive. As evidenced by many proceedings, broadcasters will comment on proceedings of interest with a wide variety of views even when NAB has commented on the same proceeding. Thus, if some broadcasters were to be harmed by the proposed Joint Application as asserted by SCBA, then we would expect that they would have commented in the proceeding to that effect. Consequently, broadcasters' apparent lack of interest in this proceeding undermines SCBA's allegation of harms to them from our granting the Joint Application. " _0*&&aa<"Ԍ` `  X' C.` ` Other Issues  V4 ` ` 1. Service to Hawaii(#`  X4&39. ` ` The State of Hawaii supports the proposed assignment provided two conditions are met. First, Hawaii asks that Applicants assure that reliable, small, 1824 inches, customer furnished, earth station receiving antenna ("dish") DBS service will be provided to its  XH4consumers.u`H e yO '#X\  P6G;QwP#эXHawaii Comments at 3.(#u The State is concerned that MCI's design for the satellites may not have sufficient power to adequately serve all of its citizens. Hawaii explains that a high number of its citizens live in multifamily housing units that can only accommodate small receiving  X 4dishes.aZ X e yO ' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXHawaii Comments at 4. Hawaii seeks detailed technical disclosure of MCI and EchoStar's satellites  " capabilities, including the quality of service that will be offered, the rate of service interruptions, and the  {O'diameter of dishes that will be used by Hawaiian subscribers. Id.(#Ư Hawaii also points out that without DBS, there is no alternative to cable service in  X 4the State.wb z e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXHawaii Comments at 12.(#w  Second, Hawaii requests that the Commission affirm that granting the applications does not obviate EchoStar's separate, previously incurred, obligation to provide DBS service  X 4to Hawaii from EchoStar's channel assignments at 148$ W.L. Hawaii asserts that if EchoStar  X 4is permitted to combine its regulatory obligations and only offer service from the 110$ W.L. orbital location, it is likely that Hawaiians will not be provided the same level of DBS  Xy4programming that is available in the continental United States.ucy  e yO4'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXHawaii Comments at 3.(#u  XK4'40. ` ` Applicants oppose Hawaii's request for conditions, arguing that the State's demand for assurance of service through 1824 inch receive dishes is untimely, and that this is not the proper proceeding for a determination concerning EchoStar's service obligations from  X4its 148$ orbital location.d e yOQ'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar/MCI Joint Opposition at 1012.(#Ƈ Applicants point out that when MCI applied for the authorization it now seeks to assign to EchoStar, Hawaii was well aware of what the Commission's service requirements to Hawaii and Alaska were because Hawaii had participated in the rulemaking proceeding that established these requirements. Nevertheless, Applicants point out that Hawaii did not object to MCI's service proposal, request any conditions, or seek reconsideration of the authorization. Based on that authorization, Applicants point out that hundreds of millions of dollars have now been spent constructing MCI's satellite system in"|* d0*&&aa"  X4accordance with the proposed specifications.e e yOy'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchoStar/MCI Joint Opposition at 11. (#ƅ In view of Hawaii's prior acquiescence, Applicants submit that it is estopped from requesting the modification of an authorization that  X4has long been finalized. As for EchoStar's obligations at the 148$ W.L. orbital location, Applicants point out that EchoStar previously filed an application to modify its authorization  X4for the 148$ W.L. location, and that Hawaii should raise any concerns in relation to that application.  X_4(41. ` ` In the 1995 DBS auction Report and Order, which modified the DBS rules, the  XH4Commission revised geographic service obligations for DBS licensees.fHX e {OQ '#X\  P6G;QwP#эX1995 Auction Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 9712.(#Ƒ The Commission recognized that due to various technical limitations not all DBS orbital positions necessarily will be capable of serving all areas of the United States with the same size receive antenna  X 4dishes.g  e {O'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXPreemption of Local Zoning Regulation of Satellite Earth Stations, 11 FCC Rcd. 19276, 19295 (1996). (# Accordingly, the Commission explained that DBS service must be provided to Alaska and Hawaii where "technically feasible," recognizing that it was unclear whether it is  X 4possible to provide service from some orbital locations.h | e {O'#X\  P6G;QwP#эX1995 Auction Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 9762.(#ƍ It was pursuant to these obligations that the Commission granted MCI's application for the subject authorization. Our grant of the Joint Application does not change the terms and conditions of this authorization. In other words, EchoStar will be in the same shoes as MCI nothing more or less. Therefore,  Xy4EchoStar's authorization for the 28 channels at 110o W.L. will be subject to the same terms and conditions as MCI's authorization for these same channels.  X44)42. ` ` Despite our concern that Hawaii, as well as Alaska, be provided DBS service, it would be inappropriate to require that the MCI satellites be redesigned at this late stage of  X4development. Applicants expect the first satellite to be placed into orbit shortly after grant.~i e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXEchostar/MCI Application at 6.(#~ Any change in design at this time would surely foreclose the launch and cause further delay  X4of service from 110o W.L. to not only Hawaii, but the entire continental United States, as well as Alaska and Puerto Rico. In addition, modifying the nearly completed satellites and rescheduling their launch would impose a substantial financial burden upon Applicants, amounting to millions of dollars, which would ultimately be passed on to EchoStar's subscribers. As such, it would not be appropriate or fair to condition the assignment of MCI's DBS license on the requirement of a maximum dish size for service to Hawaii. The appropriate time for Hawaii to have objected to MCI's DBS service proposal was when  X74MCI's original application for the 110o W.L. authorization was under consideration or by filing a timely petition for reconsideration after grant of that authorization. Hawaii did" i0*&&aa" neither. Therefore, the assignment of MCI's DBS license will not be conditioned on providing a specific antenna size for Hawaiian consumers.  X4*43. ` ` In addition, we will not condition the proposed transfer upon EchoStar's  X4performance of its obligations at 148o W.L.jX e yO' " #X\  P6G;QwP#эXHawaii Comments at 3. EchoStar is also assigned channels at the 61.5- W.L., 119- W.L., 148- W.L., and  " 175- W.L. orbital locations. The Commission has not determined whether DBS service can be provided to Hawaii from the 61.5- W.L. location.(#Ɓ The separate DBS license conditions on  X4EchoStar's 148o W.L. license will continue without regard to the action taken in this proceeding. EchoStar has not requested modification of its other DBS licenses in this proceeding and, as Hawaii notes in its reply comments, EchoStar does not challenge Hawaii's  XH4assertion of Echostar's obligation.ukH e yO '#X\  P6G;QwP#эXHawaii Comments at 4.(#u XX` ` (#`  V 4  ` ` 2. Qualification Requirements  X 4+44. ` ` In its petition to deny, UCC contends that the Applicants have not established their character or citizenship as required by the Communications Act and the Commission's  X 4rules.rl x e yO'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXUCC Petition at 3.(#r According to UCC, Applicants seek to avoid these obligations on the mistaken assumption that because the applications are for authorizations to provide subscription service, they should be held to lesser standard than other broadcast applicants. UCC argues that the  Xy4International Bureau misinterpreted the Commission's Subscription Video decisionmy e {O2' "+ #X\  P6G;QwP#эXSubscription Video Services, 2 FCC Rcd. 1001 (1987), aff'd sub nom., NABB v. FCC, 84 F.2d 665 (D.C. Cir. 1988).(# in  Xd4granting MCI the authorization it now seeks to assign to EchoStar.ndb e {Ow'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXUCC Petition at 34 (citing MCI Authorization Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 16275).(#Ʈ UCC asserts that the mere fact that the applications concern subscription DBS service, rather than terrestrial television service, does not relieve Applicants from demonstrating that they are in compliance with all of the requirements imposed on broadcasters by the Communications Act. UCC argues that to provide subscription DBS service, an entity must first obtain a broadcast license, which necessarily entails complying with a full panoply of requirements, including those concerning citizenship and character. UCC contends that once a license is obtained, the newly created licensee may then selfelect to provide service on a subscription basis and, if it  X4so elects, at that time, it would no longer be subject to broadcast contentrelated obligations.to e yOQ$'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXUCC Petition at 35.(#t UCC claims that if DBS applicants were allowed to avoid these broadcast application" o0*&&aa`" qualification requirements, there would be no way to prevent licenses from being granted to  X4international terrorists or convicted felons.vp e yOb'#X\  P6G;QwP#эXUCC Petition at 5 n.5.(#v In addition, UCC contends this precedent could be applied to terrestrial broadcast licenses and further compound the problem. UCC notes  X4that it has sought Commission review of the International Bureau's holding in the MCI DBS  X4Order, which it asserts will confirm the correctness of UCC's assertion that applicants for DBS licenses must comply with the obligation set forth in Section 310(b) of the Act. UCC contends that as long an Application for Review is pending, MCI has no authorizations to assign, and EchoStar has no basis for its failure to comply with the mandates of Section  XL4310(b) of the Act, which restricts foreign ownership of broadcast licensees.rqLX e yOU '#X\  P6G;QwP#эXUCC Petition at 6.(#r  X 4,45. ` ` This issue is being addressed by us in another proceeding. Consequently, we  X 4will not address it here.r  e X4ԍ#X\  P6G;QwP#XMCI Telecommunications Corp., FCC 99110 (released May 19, 1999).#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#  X 4   X ' IV. CONCLUSION  X 4 -46. ` ` In view of the forgoing, we find that granting the applications will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity by increasing competition in the MVPD markets to  X}4the benefit of U.S. consumers. For this reason and the reasons described in the Order and  Xh4Authorization, we grant the application of MCI Telecommunications Corporation ( MCI) and EchoStar 110 Corporation ( EchoStar) for consent to the assignment from MCI to EchoStar of MCIs authorization to construct, launch and operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite ( DBS)  X%4system using 28 frequency channels at the 110$ W.L. orbital location. We also grant the related application of EchoStars affiliate EchoStar North America Corporation ( ENA) and American Sky Broadcasting, L.L.C. ( ASkyB) for consent to the assignment from ASkyB to ENA of ASkyB's authorizations associated with earth station facilities constructed by ASkyB in Gilbert, Arizona.   X' V.ORDERING CLAUSES  XV4.47. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Application of MCI Telecommunications Corporation and EchoStar 100 Corporation for Assignment of Authorization to Construct, Launch, and Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite System Using 28  X4Frequency Channels at the 110$ W.L. Orbital Location, File No. SATASG199812020093, from MCI Telecommunications Corporation to EchoStar 110 Corporation IS GRANTED. "r0*&&aa"Ԍ X4/48. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application of American Sky Broadcasting, LLC and EchoStar North America Corporation for Assignment of TransmitReceive Earth Station Authorizations, File No. SESASG1998120401829(4), from American Sky Broadcasting, LLC to EchoStar North America Corporation IS GRANTED.  X4049. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions to deny filed by Small Cable Business Association, PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, and the request for imposition of conditions filed by CoreComm Limited ARE DENIED.  X14150. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assignments shall be completed within 60 days from the release of this order and that the Commission shall be notified by letter within 30 days of consummation.  X 4251. ` ` This Order is effective upon release. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, may be filed within thirty days  X 4of the public notice of this Order (see 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(2)). ` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  Magalie Roman Salas ` `  Secretary &G  "r0*&&aar" (&G352.( &G ` `  hhCqpp  *xxXMay 19, 1999  X'? Separate Statement of %Commissioner Susan Ness  X_4 \  V 4Re:Application of MCI Telecommunications Corporation and EchoStar 110 Corporation  V 4for Consent to Assignment of Authorization to Construct, Launch, and Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite System Using 28 Frequency Channels at the 110 W.L.  V 4Orbital Location DBS provides a valuable service to the American public, and its benefits should extend to all geographic areas of our country. When the Commission licensed EchoStar in 1996, it required EchoStar to provide service to Hawaii and Alaska from 148W.L. As the Commission stated then, "[W]e will expect Echostar to provide DBS service to Hawaii and Alaska in accordance with Commission rules and policies." Although EchoStar's original plans to serve Hawaii and Alaska have been somewhat delayed due to technical problems with its satellite, Echostar has made interim arrangements, and is now providing alternate service to both states. Nothing in the order we adopt today will relieve Echostar of this continuing geographic service requirement. In addition, in 1996, when we authorized MCI to provide service at 110W.L., the Commission also required MCI to comply with our geographic service rules. In acquiring MCI's DBS license, EchoStar assumes this obligation for this additional orbital location and is subject to the Commission's rules. I expect EchoStar to fulfill its commitment to serve these noncontiguous areas.  X 4Thus, I reiterate my commitment to making DBS service available to all geographic areas throughout the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska.