********************************************************
                         NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of:
Paxson Oklahoma License, Inc.
v.
Cox Communications, Inc.
Must Carry Complaint
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR-5632-M
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
        Adopted:  April 2, 2001                        Released:  April 3, 2001
By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau:
     I.   introduction
1.     Paxson Oklahoma License, Inc. ("Paxson"), licensee of commercial television station KOPX-
TV (Channel 62), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, ("KOPX-TV") filed a must carry complaint with the
Commission, pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.61 of the Commission's rules, against Cox Communications
("Cox").  Paxson alleges that Cox has failed to carry the signal of KOPX-TV without material degradation
on a basic service tier channel uniformly available to all Cox subscribers on its systems serving Edmond,
Oklahoma and communities in Logan, Canadian, and Cleveland Counties, Oklahoma (the "cable
communities"), as required under the Commission's rules.  Cox filed an opposition to the complaint.
Paxson filed a reply.
     II.  background
3.     Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the
Commission in Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues ("Must Carry Order"), commercial television broadcast stations are
entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights, including certain mandatory channel position rights, on cable
systems located within the station's market.  A station's market for this purpose is its "designated market
area," or DMA, as defined by Nielsen Media Research.  A DMA is a geographic market designation that
defines each television market exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns.
4.     With respect to the channel number on which stations asserting must carry rights are to be
carried, Section 614(b)(6) of the Act and Section 76.57 of the Commission's rules provide commercial
television stations with three channel positioning options.  The station may elect to be carried on: (1) the
channel number on which the station is broadcast over-the-air; (2) the channel number on which the station
was carried on July 19, 1985; or (3) the channel number on which the station was carried on January 1,
1992.  The Act and the rules also provide that a broadcast station may be carried on any other channel
number mutually agreed upon by the station and the cable operator.
     V.   discussion
6.     In support of its complaint, Paxson asserts that Cox has failed to comply with the Bureau's
previous channel placement order.  Specifically, Paxson argues that Cox has failed to carry KOPX-TV on
Channel 62 without material degradation, on a basic service tier at a channel position uniformly viewable
by its subscribers.  By letter dated September 15, 2000, Paxson informed Cox that carriage of KOPX-TV
on channel 62 did not conform to the Commission's must carry requirements.  Paxson requested that Cox
relocate KOPX-TV to another channel position on Cox's basic tier in close proximity to the other broadcast
stations being carried by Cox and available to all of Cox's basic cable subscribers.  In response, by letter
dated September 24, 2000, Cox informed Paxson that it had taken steps to remove traps and scrambling that
might prevent reception of Channel 62 without use of a converter box.  Cox also stated that the initial
repositioning of KOPX-TV to cable Channel 62 was accomplished in strict compliance with the must carry
rules.  Paxson subsequently conducted a telephone survey, the results of which allegedly reveal that some
of KOPX-TV viewers experience either poor reception or no reception on Cox's Channel 62.  Paxson
maintains that whatever steps were undertaken by Cox to improve reception were wholly inadequate.
Thereafter, Paxson filed the instant petition and asks that Cox be ordered to move KOPX-TV to a mutually
agreeable basic service tier channel uniformly viewable by Cox's subscribers in the cable communities, and
to carry the signal on that channel without material degradation.
7.     In opposition, Cox requests that Paxson's complaint be summarily dismissed as both
unsubstantiated and an abuse of process.  Cox takes issue with Paxson's use of a subscriber survey as proof
of the claim asserted.   Cox asserts that the survey results are a poor substitute for a detailed list of
disgruntled subscribers with specific reception problems; that Paxson's reliance on survey results without
providing the underlying survey text is misplaced; and that Paxson relies on selective survey results without
providing expert testimony attesting to the propriety of the survey methodology and statistical significance
of the results.  Additionally, Cox maintains that Paxson made no effort to work cooperatively to remedy
the alleged technical problems although Cox responded promptly to Paxson's initial expression of technical
concerns. Moreover, Cox states that its engineering staff has been unable to identify any technical problem
with KOPX-TV's carriage and has not received any calls from dissatisfied subscribers regarding poor
reception or no reception of KOPX-TV.  Finally, Cox argues that there is no evidence in the record
supporting Paxson's claim that cable Channel 62 is categorically unable to satisfy Cox's must carry
obligations.  Nevertheless, Cox states that it is prepared to remedy any specific and substantiated technical
problems regarding channel reception.
8.     In reply, Paxson reiterates its argument that Cox has failed to deliver KOPX-TV on Channel 62
to all subscribers in the cable community in a manner that is uniformly viewable and without material
degradation.  Paxson asserts that Cox's decision to argue Paxson's failure to provide "statistically
significant" evidence of carriage problems rather than argue that it has met its duty to provide service that
is uniformly viewable and without material degradation is without merit.
9.     We deny Paxson's petition.  As an initial matter, it is not disputed that Cox's cable systems
serving the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma DMA currently carry KOPX-TV on Channel 62.  Therefore,
Paxson's petition for mandatory carriage mischaracterizes the relief sought.  Rather, Paxson's petition seeks
to address alleged channel reception and/or technical deficiencies with respect to Cox's carriage of KOPX-
TV.  In any case, Paxson fails to offer any empirical evidence to support its claim that Cox has failed to
carry KOPX-TV on Channel 62 without material degradation, on a basic service tier at a channel position
uniformly viewable by its subscribers.  Moreover, Paxson failed to introduce the study itself into evidence,
which makes it impossible for us to judge its efficacy.  Nevertheless, Cox has indicated its willingness to
work with KOPX-TV and Paxson to remedy any specific technical deficiencies, to the extent they exist.
This is consistent with the approach we have taken in the past with respect to this issue.  Cable operators are
required to make reasonable efforts and use good engineering practices and proper equipment to guard
against unnecessary degradation of the broadcast television signals.  Cable operators are further
encouraged to work with broadcasters to resolve problems affecting the quality of a particular signal prior
to its reception at the cable headend.  The record indicates that Cox is willing to work with KOPX-TV and
Paxson to remedy any specific and substantiated technical problems.  We expect the parties to work together
to correct any alleged problems subscribers may have viewing KOPX-TV.  Accordingly, we deny Paxson's
petition.
     X.   ordering clauses
11.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended [47 U.S.C.  534(d)(3)], that the complaint (CSR-5632-M) filed by Paxson Oklahoma License,
Inc. against Cox Communications, Inc., IS DENIED.
12.    This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules.
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    Deborah E. Klein, Chief
                    Consumer Protection and Competition Division
                    Cable Services Bureau