********************************************************    
                         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:

Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. and Lenfest
Atlantic, Inc.
And
Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. v.
Suburban Cable 

Petitions for Reconsideration
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CSR-4953-A
CSR-4866-M

                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

     Adopted:  [Click here to insert date]   Released:  [Click here to insert date] 

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     I.   INTRODUCTIon
1.     Before the Cable Services Bureau ("Bureau") are two petitions seeking reconsideration of a
market modification order and one seeking reconsideration of a must carry order adopted by the Bureau. 
The following orders and petitions are involved:  1) a petition for reconsideration filed by Suburban
Cable TV Co., Inc. and Lenfest Atlantic, Inc. ("Suburban") of the Bureau order in Suburban Cable TV
Co., Inc. and Lenfest Atlantic, Inc.; 2) a petition for partial reconsideration filed by Maranatha
Broadcasting Company, Inc., licensee of Station WFMZ-TV (Ind., Ch. 69), Allentown, Pennsylvania
("WFMZ-TV") of the Bureau order in Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. and Lenfest Atlantic, Inc.; and 3) a
petition for reconsideration filed by Suburban of the Bureau order in Maranatha Broadcasting Company,
Inc. v. Suburban Cable. 
     II.  BACKGROUND
3.     In its initial request for modification, Suburban sought to exclude WFMZ-TV from carriage
in the cable communities it serves in the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, and Atlantic, Camden, and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.  Suburban maintained that
WFMZ-TV did not meet any of the market modification criteria and that grant of its request was
warranted.  The Bureau disagreed with Suburban's analysis with regard to the Pennsylvania communities
and denied that portion of its request.  However, it accepted Suburban's analysis with regard to the New
Jersey communities and granted the requested exclusion.  In WFMZ-TV's must carry complaint against
Suburban, WFMZ-TV requested that the Bureau order Suburban to commence carriage of its signal.  The
Bureau granted WFMZ-TV's complaint, based on Suburban's failure to prove poor signal quality and
WFMZ-TV's statement that it would provide, at its own cost, any equipment necessary to ensure the
delivery of a good quality signal.  
4.     In the instant petitions, Suburban is requesting that the Bureau reverse that portion of its
decision in Suburban Cable which denied Suburban's request with respect to the Pennsylvania
communities and also that the Bureau overturn the original grant of WFMZ-TV's must carry complaint in
Maranatha Broadcasting.  WFMZ-TV is requesting in its reconsideration that the Bureau overturn its
partial grant of exclusion to Suburban in Suburban Cable.  We consolidate consideration of these
petitions in the interest of administrative efficiency.  The discussion of each reconsideration request will
be addressed separately herein.  
     V.   Suburban's petition for reconsideration (CSR 4953-a)
          A.   Argument
6.     In support of its request, Suburban argues that it clearly demonstrated the appropriateness of
excluding its Pennsylvania communities from WFMZ-TV's market.  Suburban maintains that in denying
this portion of its request, despite WFMZ-TV's failure to meet any of the four specifically enumerated
statutory criteria and WFMZ-TV's inability to identify any compelling mitigating circumstances, the
Bureau disregarded the governing statutory scheme.  Suburban argues that the Bureau's analysis in
Suburban Cable was flawed because the Bureau minimized the importance of the market modification
criteria and gave significant weight to two other factors.  First, Suburban indicates that while the Bureau
suggested that WFMZ-TV's lack of historic carriage was because it was a "weaker" station, it did not
cite any unusual reasons for WFMZ-TV's failure to be carried over the past 20 years.  Suburban argues
that WFMZ-TV's failure to act on its must carry status for almost 20 years, despite numerous
opportunities to do so, should not be overlooked in its failure to meet this factor.
7.     Second, Suburban states that signal strength tests reveal that WFMZ-TV fails to deliver a
good quality signal to the systems' principal headends, particularly because the Bureau acknowledged in
Suburban Cable that over 81 percent of the subject communities are located outside of WFMZ-TV's
Grade B contour.  Suburban argues that in relying on WFMZ-TV's pending application to upgrade its
transmitter facility the Bureau acted prematurely.  Moreover, Suburban points out that even WFMZ-TV's
proposed Grade B contour, when effective, will not provide coverage to over 68 percent of the
communities.  Suburban maintains that because the Bureau has decided to utilize a station's Grade B
contour as probative of whether a station provides local coverage to a community, it should adhere to that
standard objectively.  Therefore, it argues, if a community is on the fringe, beyond a station's coverage
area, this is evidence that the community is located outside of the station's market.  Suburban asserts that
in Suburban Cable, the Bureau adopted a shifting and ever-expanding definition of "fringe" in an effort
to conclude that a majority of the cable communities are within the station's service area.  Suburban
contends that the Bureau has in the past excluded cable communities on the fringe of a station's Grade B
contour from the ADIs of several stations.  In addition, Suburban argues that the Bureau denied its
request with regard to the Pennsylvania communities based upon the fact that the Bensalem, Coatesville
and Delaware County cable systems each served at least some communities which would be covered by
WFMZ-TV's upgraded Grade B contour.  Suburban points out that the modification factors clearly
indicate that Congress intended the Commission to review such requests on a community-by-community
rather than a system-by-system basis.  Indeed, Suburban states that in other comparable situations, the
Bureau has "split the system" based on Grade B coverage.  Suburban maintains that the Bureau should
have done so here.
8.     Suburban argues further that the Bureau overlooked WFMZ-TV's failure to meet the second,
third and fourth modification factors, relying instead on non-statutory factors.  Suburban states that
although the Bureau relied on the evidence of WFMZ-TV's nearby carriage, the only community it cited
was Philadelphia, even though there are dozens closer to the system communities.  In any event,
Suburban maintains that WFMZ-TV's carriage in Philadelphia is not probative since the station is being
carried solely because of the must carry requirements.  Suburban states that the Bureau itself has
previously found that when other systems currently carry a station when mandated by law it "is not
highly probative of establishing a history of carriage . . . particularly when, as in this instance, [the
station] has been operating for over a decade."  In addition, Suburban states that although the Bureau
relied on the importance of local listings in Suburban Cable, it was shown in the modification petition
that WFMZ-TV's program listings were not included in any local newspapers or the edition of TV Guide
which serves the communities.  Even if it were listed, however, Suburban contends that it would hardly
be compelling evidence for market modification purposes.
9.     In opposition, WFMZ-TV maintains that Suburban's petition does not consider the needs and
interests of its subscribers, who have been deprived of WFMZ-TV's programming, but rather its own
interest in using its subscriber base and alliances to create programming and cable advertising services
that compete directly with WFMZ-TV for viewers and advertising revenue.  WFMZ-TV points out that
Suburban has amassed 970,000 subscribers in southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey and
continues to obtain new cable system acquisitions.  Moreover, WFMZ-TV states that Suburban's new
local news channel, focusing on Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, directly competes with
WFMZ-TV on a substantial number of cable systems in the Philadelphia market.
10.    WFMZ-TV argues that Suburban's reconsideration request disregards the permitted scope of
the Commission's discretion and should be rejected.  WFMZ-TV states that, in its original review, the
Commission considered each of the market factors at length and correctly concluded with regard to
historic carriage, carriage of other stations and viewership that these factors should be assigned little, if
any, weight.  Further, WFMZ-TV contends that Grade B coverage is neither an exclusive nor a
dispositive matter and this factor, by its own terms, allows the Commission to consider whether a station
provides coverage or other local service.  WFMZ-TV argues that the statute clearly permits the
Commission to consider other factors and it is entirely appropriate to look at such information in
determining the breadth of WFMZ-TV's economic market and service area.
11.    WFMZ-TV maintains that Suburban's petition does not meet the threshold requirements for
reconsideration and presents no new or additional facts.  Moreover, WFMZ-TV states that the
conclusions Suburban advocates are premised on misleading characterizations and selective omissions. 
For instance, WFMZ-TV states that while Suburban portrays WFMZ-TV's coverage of Bucks, Chester
and Delaware County affairs as not "meaningful," it overlooks the information presented by WFMZ-TV
in this regard in its opposition to Suburban's original petition.  Also, WFMZ-TV points out that besides
its carriage in Philadelphia, Suburban ignores WFMZ-TV's carriage by several cable operators in Bucks,
Chester and Delaware Counties, including Suburban's own Pottstown cable system.  Finally, WFMZ-TV
argues that Suburban's arguments as to local listings are inconsistent.  WFMZ-TV points out that copies
of TV Guide purchased in Bensalem, and Chester and Delaware Counties, include WFMZ-TV's program
schedule.
12.    In reply, Suburban maintains that if WFMZ-TV were local to its communities it would have
no objection to carrying the station.  However, since it is not, Suburban requests that the Bureau
reconsider its decision so as to relieve it from any obligation to carry the signal.  Suburban asserts that
WFMZ-TV is incorrect in stating that the instant petition does not meet the threshold requirement for
reconsideration.  Suburban points out that Section 1.106(b)(1) of the Commission's rules indicates that
"any party to [a] proceeding . . . whose interests are adversely affected by any action taken by . . . [a]
designated authority, may file a petition requesting reconsideration of the action taken."
13.    In a supplement to its opposition, WFMZ-TV states that since the Bureau's action, the cable
system has refused to permit WFMZ-TV to install equipment at its headends to assure the availability of
a good quality signal and has never honored its must carry rights.  WFMZ-TV states that while Suburban
is apparently carrying its signal on its Chester County system on cable channel 63, such carriage falls far
short of meeting Suburban's must carry obligations.  WFMZ-TV states that, according to the channel
line-up on Suburban's web site, WFMZ-TV is not carried as part of the basic cable service but as part of
its standard cable programming package.  WFMZ-TV argues that carriage on channel 63 is inconsistent
with Section 614(b)(6) of the Act and that Section 614(b)(7) of the Act guarantees it the right to have its
signal provided to every subscriber to the cable system and not just those willing to pay an additional fee
to receive it.
14.    WFMZ-TV states that its request to increase its power has been granted.  WFMZ-TV
indicates that it has also filed for a further power increase which, if granted, will allow it to place a Grade
B contour over most, if not all, of the communities in Chester and Delaware counties which are at issue
here.  In addition, WFMZ-TV states that its program schedule is now listed in two Bucks County
newspapers, the Courier Times and the Intelligence Record, and the Philadelphia Inquirier's Bucks
Count edition.  Finally, WFMZ-TV points out that, despite its lack of carriage, it has continued to
provide coverage of newsworthy events in Bucks, Chester and Delaware counties.
15.    In a second supplement to its opposition, WFMZ-TV cites two events that have occurred
since its earlier filing   the Commission's release of Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable
Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order
("Market Modification Final Report and Order"), and the recent cable system consolidations in the
Philadelphia television market.  WFMZ-TV argues that the Market Modification Final Report and Order
reached two conclusions that are significant to this particular case.  The first was that programming "is
particularly useful in determining if the television station provides specific service to the community," a
factor which the Bureau pointed to in its original decision.  The second specifically held that cable
operators ordered to begin carrying a television station are not excused from complying with such orders
pending reconsideration or further review.  WFMZ-TV states that more than two years after the
Bureau's original decision ordering Suburban to carry its signal, the system has not complied despite the
fact that no order staying the effectiveness of the original decision has been issued. Further, WFMZ-TV
points out that recent arrangements between AT&T/Suburban and Comcast will ultimately give Comcast
ownership or control of the majority of cable subscribers in the Philadelphia market.  WFMZ-TV argues
that unless the Commission promptly enforces Suburban Cable and confirms WFMZ-TV's must carry
rights, Comcast's clustering of cable systems may bode ill for its signal's future carriage.  WFMZ-TV
asserts that such defiance of Suburban Cable has caused it serious, irreparable injury and resulted in
lower measured viewing in the Philadelphia market and lower advertising revenues, as well as decreased
opportunities to purchase high-quality syndicated programming.
16.    In response, Suburban states that WFMZ-TV's arguments contain misleading and inaccurate
statements.  Although WFMZ-TV implies that Suburban has willfully violated previous Commission
orders requiring it to carry WFMZ-TV on its Bensalem, Coatesville and Delaware County systems,
Suburban points out that neither of these Orders were self-effectuating.  Suburban states that it was
allowed the opportunity to file an engineering showing with regard to WFMZ-TV's poor signal quality at
the Coatesville headend; a showing which, to date, has not been acted on by the Bureau.  With regard to
the Bensalem/Delaware County system, Suburban states that it was required to carry WFMZ-TV only
after such time as the station provided the specialized equipment necessary to deliver a good quality
signal at the system's principal headends.  However, Suburban states, WFMZ-TV has never provided
such equipment and it therefore has no current obligation to carry the station.
17.    WFMZ-TV in reply states that Suburban's claim as to the Coatesville Order obscures the
fact that Suburban had been unlawfully carrying WFMZ-TV since the summer of 1998.  However,
WFMZ-TV states that on or about the date of its above-described response, Suburban deleted its carriage
of WFMZ-TV. With regard to the Bensalem/Delaware County order, WFMZ-TV states first that
Suburban's argument that specialized equipment is necessary is specious because all of the Bensalem
system is within its station's Grade B contour, and much within its Grade A contour.  Second, it points
out that the Bensalem and Delaware County systems both carry WLVT, a noncommercial station
broadcasting from the same location as WFMZ-TV.  Third, WFMZ-TV states that since the release of the
Bureau's decision in Suburban Cable, Suburban has actively frustrated WFMZ-TV's efforts to install
any preamplifiers and antennas necessary for its carriage.
18.    Suburban argues in response that WFMZ-TV was erroneously added to its Coatesville
system through means of a fiber-link that was not discovered until Suburban began preparing its response
to WFMZ-TV's first supplement.  Suburban states that it recognized that such carriage was not pursuant
to the must carry rules and deleted the signal from the fiber-link.  Suburban points out that the fact that
WFMZ-TV's unintended carriage was through a fiber-link and not accomplished by off-air reception
supports the argument that the station does not provide a good quality signal to the Coatesville headend. 
Suburban states that recent signal measurements show that WFMZ-TV still fails to deliver an adequate
signal not only to the Coatesville system, but also to the Bensalem and Delaware County systems as
well.  Moreover, Suburban states that with regard to the Bensalem and Delaware County systems,
WFMZ-TV has produced no written support its claims as to conversations with cable system
representatives regarding installation of equipment.  Suburban states that it recognizes, however, that
WFMZ-TV is entitled to take steps to improve its poor signal and will cooperate with the station in
installing any equipment necessary.  Suburban notes that since the antenna structures utilized by
Suburban at each of the three relevant headends are owned by a third party, American Tower
Corporation, any testing and installation of specialized equipment will require the involvement of that
party as well.  If and when WFMZ-TV is able to utilize its equipment to deliver an adequate signal,
Suburban states that it stands ready to add the signal to its line-up.
19.    In an opposition to the response filed by Suburban, WFMZ-TV states that when it responded
to Suburban's expressed willingness to cooperate as detailed above, it did install antenna and pre-
amplification equipment at each of the three cable system headends and its measured signal at each
location exceeded the required signal strength levels.  Therefore, WFMZ-TV states, under the terms of
Suburban's response, it should have begun carriage of WFMZ-TV no later than November 21, 1999 for
the Coatesville and Delaware County systems and November 23, 1999 for the Bensalem system. 
WFMZ-TV points out that among Suburban's conditions for permitting WFMZ-TV to permanently
install its reception equipment was a requirement that WFMZ-TV enter into tower lease agreements with
American Tower.  However, in the course of arranging for installation, WFMZ-TV indicates that it
discovered that no other television station carried by Suburban is obliged to pay tower rent for a
reception antenna.  WFMZ-TV asserts that Suburban's insistence on a lease agreement between WFMZ-
TV and American Tower places a burden on WFMZ-TV not contemplated by the must carry provisions
of the Cable Act.  Indeed, it indicates, the Commission recently stated in another Suburban case, that
tower rental fees cannot be imposed on television stations asserting must carry rights.  Moreover, in its
Must Carry Order, the Commission made it clear that a television station's obligation to bear the expense
of delivering a good quality signal to the cable system's principal headend extends only to improved or
upgraded equipment.  WFMZ-TV requests, therefore, that the Bureau resolve any ambiguity as to its
decision in the Coatesville order and hold that Suburban may not require WFMZ-TV to bear the costs of
renting tower space.  WFMZ-TV also requests that the Commission impose monetary forfeitures against
the system.
          A.   Discussion
20.    Suburban's principal argument appears to be that the Bureau erred by minimizing the
importance of several of the statutory modification factors, relying instead on non-statutory factors
involving, for example, carriage patterns of nearby cable systems and local TV listings.  With respect to
this point, the statute does not direct the Commission to just take the specifically identified factors into
account but to act "by taking into account such factors as" those that are enumerated.  Thus, it does not
limit the scope of the inquiry in the manner suggested.   In Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, it
was stated that when Congress directs an agency to consider certain factors, the agency simply "must
reach an express and considered conclusion about the bearing of a factor, but is not required to give any
specific weight to it."  In Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues ("Must Carry Order"), the Commission
stated that it did "not want to restrict the types of evidence that parties can submit to demonstrate the
propriety of changing a station's must-carry market."  It did not find it is advisable to prejudge the
importance of any of the factors specified since each case was likely to be unique.  In this proceeding
all of the available evidence was evaluated to determine the scope of the WFMZ-TV market.  As has
been indicated in many decisions under Section 614(h), an unduly literal reliance of the four standards
enumerated in the statute, could result in decisions conflicting with the basic objectives of the mandatory
carriage rules.  That is, stations lacking significant over-the-air audience as well as historical carriage
even in areas clearly within their economic market could be denied carriage rights.  As the Commission
has stated, relying exclusively and explicitly on the referenced factors "could severely narrow the
carriage rights of stations even within what is undeniably their local market area."  Thus, we reject
Suburban's argument in this regard.
21.     Further, we do not agree that the use of non-statutory criteria is statutorily or logically
irrelevant.  There is nothing in the Commission's rules or the statute that precludes the Commission in its
review from considering other additional factors that may have an impact, either positively or negatively,
on the outcome.  Factor I expressly requires the Commission to take into account "whether the station, or
other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems
within such community."   Historical carriage of a station on adjacent cable systems is relevant
evidence of the scope of a station's market in that it reflects a nexus between the station and the area in
question.  Although not as probative as carriage with the specific community involved, it is entitled to
consideration pursuant to the statutory instruction that the Commission consider evidence "such as"
historical carriage in the community in order to "better effectuate the purposes of" the statutory
mandatory carriage requirement.  The Bureau's reference to the fact that some station's have not had an
opportunity to build a record of carriage for reasons not necessarily reflecting a judgment as to the
geography of the market involved, was intended to suggest that regulatory constraints, the technical
facilities involved, and considerations specific to the popularity of the programming content of a
particular station are not necessarily determinative of the mandatory carriage market of the station in
question.  Because that statute in general accords stations carriage throughout an DMA, the general
requirement is that stations be accorded carriage rights far beyond their Grade B service area.
22.    With regard to the question of Grade B, while we have often found that, as a general matter,
Grade B coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure of a station's
natural economic market, it is not an exclusive test. WFMZ-TV's impending technical upgrade at the
time of our decision indicated an intention to serve the areas in question and strengthened WFMZ-TV's
showing as to the existence of a market connection. WFMZ-TV's application for a second power
increase has also been granted and thus WFMZ-TV's authority to operate at this increased power is now
clear.  WFMZ-TV's application for a power increase was a factor that was relevant to the matter at hand
and could not overlooked.  Moreover, we do not agree with Suburban that our previous denial should
have only involved those communities already within WFMZ-TV's Grade B contour.  The circumstances
in this situation were quite different from those cited by Suburban in Cablevision Systems Corporation. 
In the situation herein, WFMZ-TV's Grade B contour, which was in the process of being expanded,
already encompassed the majority of the Bensalem system, and at least a third of the Coatesville system
and after completion of its upgrade would encompass even more communities of those systems and
nearly a third of the Delaware County system.  As a result, there was significant coverage before the
upgrade and after its upgrade, a majority of the communities in all three systems appeared to be within or
on fringe of WFMZ-TV's Grade B contour.  In light of these factors, as well as the technically-integrated
nature of the cable systems involved, the station's carriage in other nearby communities, and the station's
expressed ability to deliver a good quality signal to the individual system headends, a selective exclusion
was not necessary. 
23.    With regard to Suburban's condition that WFMZ-TV enter into tower lease agreements with
American Tower for any antenna it wishes to permanently install, we note that the Communications Act
and the Commission's rules mandate that cable operators may not shift the costs of routine reception of
broadcast signals to those stations seeking mandatory carriage status.  Cable operators may "require a
broadcast station to pay only for antennas, equipment and other needed improvement that are directly
related to the delivery of its signal and not to contribute to the general maintenance of the cable system's
facilities."  As a result, Suburban cannot require WFMZ-TV to obtain a lease agreement with American
Tower for installation of reception equipment comparable to that used for the reception of other signals.
24.    Finally, we decline to assess a forfeiture against Suburban.  Suburban is correct that the must
carry decisions granting WFMZ-TV carriage on its Coatesville and Bensalem/Delaware County systems
were conditional on WFMZ-TV providing a good quality signal.  However, we caution Suburban that,
given our action herein, and WFMZ-TV's apparent capability of providing a good quality signal upon the
installation of the proper equipment, no further delays are warranted. 
25.    In view of the foregoing, we find that a grant of Suburban's request for reconsideration is not
in the public interest.
     XXVI.     WFMZ-TV's Petition for Partial Reconsideration (CSR-4953-A)
          A.   Argument
27.    In support of its request, WFMZ-TV states that, with respect to the Bureau's decision to
grant Suburban's requested exclusion of the New Jersey communities, Suburban Cable does not reflect
the Commission's duty, under the Administrative Procedure Act, to either follow the reasoning of recent
decisions in comparable circumstances or provide an "adequate explanation why . . . [its] alteration or
adaptation may seem to be rational and to escape the domain of the seemingly arbitrary."  WFMZ-TV
argues that the facts on which the Bureau based its conclusion have been found in other instances to
support the completely opposite view.  WFMZ-TV maintains that if the erroneous factual assumption of
its lack of carriage and the reasoning of other cases applied herein, the Bureau should conclude that these
communities are also part of WFMZ-TV's economic market and service area.
28.    WFMZ-TV states that the Bureau released four separate decisions prior to Suburban Cable,
all involving WFMZ-TV and the requested exclusion of New Jersey communities and that none of these
decisions assigned any significance to the interposition of the Delaware River between Philadelphia and
New Jersey.  Indeed, WFMZ-TV states that in Garden State the Bureau found that "the distances and
geography involved are not so extreme in terms of the core area of the cable system as to suggest that no
market nexus with the communities exists."  On the other hand, WFMZ-TV notes that each of these
decisions found of "significant importance" in favor of WFMZ-TV's carriage the station's "efforts to
provide programming targeted to New Jersey, including Burlington, Camden and Gloucester counties"
and "evidence relating to cable carriage in other adjoining communities."  WFMZ-TV asserts that both
of these factors are present here.  WFMZ-TV states that it presented virtually identical evidence
regarding its programming service to New Jersey in its opposition to Suburban's original request and this
was acknowledged in Suburban Cable.  Moreover, WFMZ-TV points out that since the release of
Suburban Cable, carriage of its signal has commenced on the Comcast and Garden State cable systems in
communities immediately adjacent to the instant communities pursuant to the Bureau's decision's in
Comcast Cablevision of Burlington County and Garden State.  WFMZ-TV maintains that because
Suburban Cable does not articulate the Bureau's rationale for treating the instant communities
differently, it renders the grant of exclusion of these communities to be arbitrary and capricious.
29.    In opposition, Suburban argues that WFMZ-TV offers no compelling arguments to
demonstrate that the New Jersey communities are part of its local market and requests that the Bureau
affirm its prior decision..  Suburban states that it demonstrated in its original request that WFMZ-TV was
not local to the New Jersey communities and that it should be relieved of mandatory carriage of the
station.  Suburban points out that the communities at issue here are considerably more distant than those
of other New Jersey communities identified by WFMZ-TV which have been denied exclusion in other
Bureau decisions and the station's Grade B contour does not now, nor will it in the future, encompass the
subject communities.  In addition, Suburban indicates that, despite WFMZ-TV's claims, the station is
not currently carried on Comcast's and Garden State's cable systems and there is no assurance that it will
be carried anytime in the near future.
30.    In reply, WFMZ-TV cites arguments it outlined in its opposition to Suburban's separate
request for reconsideration in which its seeks to overturn the Bureau's denial of exclusion of its
Pennsylvania system communities.  WFMZ-TV maintains that the facts in this proceeding show that its
programming is directed to Suburban's New Jersey communities and that Suburban has discriminated
against WFMZ-TV to achieve its own anti-competitive objectives.
          A.   Discussion
31.    We do not agree with the arguments raised by WFMZ-TV herein and deny its partial
reconsideration request.  The circumstances for which a grant of exclusion was necessary initially have
not changed and WFMZ-TV has not presented any new information which alters those circumstances. 
Moreover, we note that with regard to these New Jersey communities, not only will the initiation of the
most-recently granted Grade B modification for WFMZ-TV not alter the failure of the station's Grade B
contour to encompass these communities, but these communities are served by a entirely separate
physical system from those serving the Pennsylvania communities.
     XXXII.    Suburban's Petition for Reconsideration (CSR-4866-M)
          A.   Argument
33.    In granting WFMZ-TV's complaint against Suburban, the Bureau allowed Suburban 15 days
from the release date of Maranatha Broadcasting to submit an engineering showing to substantiate its
claim of poor signal quality with regard to its Coatesville cable system.  Suburban submitted this
showing in a supplement within the required time allowed.
34.    In support of its request, Suburban argues that although the engineering showing it originally
provided in opposition to WFMZ-TV's complaint substantiated WFMZ-TV's poor signal quality, the
Bureau indicated in Maranatha Broadcasting that the showing was deficient in two areas:  a) that the test
failed to include the age and most recent calibration date(s) of the equipment used in its tests; and b) that
the 30-foot measurement height used by Suburban in its test of WFMZ-TV's signal was apparently
considerably less than that called for when compared to the normal placement of antennas on Suburban's
350-foot headend tower.  Suburban states that it resubmits its original signal strength test, as well as a
more recent test conducted at its Coatesville headend, both of which were conducted using the same
equipment.  Moreover, Suburban maintains that it tests all of the signals of stations not currently carried
at the 30-foot measurement height.  It states that this is the height of the roof-mounted search antenna
that it always uses to detect the presence of off-air television signals and that a number of local broadcast
stations have achieved positive signal results at this level.  Suburban argues that WFMZ-TV should be
treated no differently from other stations in this regard.
35.    Suburban points out that the Commission has clearly distinguished between what is required
in testing signals which are currently carried from testing signals seeking carriage for the first time.  In
the former situation, Suburban states that the cable operator is required to make signal quality
measurements "using the equipment now used by the cable operator to receive such signals."  In the
latter, Suburban states that the Commission determined that "to the extent that the cable operator is able
to do so, the signal level shall be determined on measurements made with generally acceptable
equipment that is currently used to receive signals of similar frequency range, type or distance from the
principal headend.  Where such similarities do not exist or if the measurement were made at a designated
headend that is not the current reception location (headend) for the broadcast signal, we expect the cable
operator to follow good engineering practices for the measurement of the broadcast signals in
question."  Suburban states that it believes that Maranatha Broadcasting fails to recognize this
distinction and that it is unreasonable to expect Suburban to send one or more of its employees to the top
of a 350-foot headend tower for testing purposes every time a station requests carriage.  Suburban asserts
that tests conducted at the 30-foot level are conducted according to Commission guidelines and that
where signal quality thresholds are not met, it provides the station with a reasonable opportunity to
demonstrate, at the station's expense, that it delivers a good quality signal to the system's headend. 
Suburban therefore concludes that the information in its original opposition to the complaint and its
supplement demonstrate that WFMZ-TV is not entitled to carriage on its system.
36.    In comments, WFMZ-TV argues that Suburban's supplement adds nothing to substantiate the
system's claims of poor signal quality.  WFMZ-TV states that Suburban not only incorporates the results
of its original signal strength test, but adds the results of a new test which repeats the faults of the
original by using the same antenna at the same 30-foot height.  WFMZ-TV argues that, instead of
conducting dispositive tests, Suburban complains about the burden of testing WFMZ-TV's signal with
equipment and at a height comparable to that used for the reception of other UHF stations it currently
carries.  WFMZ-TV points out that the Clarification Order clearly states that "[t]he cable operator . . .
should use an antenna placed at the same height as that currently used by the cable systems to receive
broadcast signals."  While Suburban claims that it tests all signals not currently carried on the
Coatesville system at the 30-foot height, WFMZ-TV maintains that this is not the issue.  Moreover,
WFMZ-TV points out that Suburban does not say that all or even any of the UHF signals it currently
carries would provide a good quality signal at that level.  WFMZ-TV states that it is entitled to have its
signal tested with equipment comparable to the stations which are carried rather than those that are not
carried.
37.    WFMZ-TV maintains that the only new information Suburban supplies is to reinforce the
fact that both of the system's signal tests did not conform to good engineering practices.  WFMZ-TV
points out that the test antenna is 15 years old and has been mounted continuously on the roof.  WFMZ-
TV states that Suburban does not provide any calibration data to show that this aged antenna is
performing in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications after 15 years of exposure to the
elements.  WFMZ-TV argues that it has sought to cooperate with Suburban in providing a good quality
signal and has offered to provide, at its own expense, any equipment reasonably necessary.  WFMZ-TV
states that it remains willing to mount, at its own expense, a test antenna on the Coatesville headend
tower, at a comparable height to other UHF stations, to demonstrate the receipt of a good quality signal
under the proviso that Suburban agree to carry its signal if the test shows compliance.  
          A.   Discussion
38.    We do not agree with the arguments raised by Suburban and deny reconsideration of WFMZ-
TV's must carry complaint.  While Suburban provided, as required, the age and most recent dates of
calibration of the equipment used in its more signal strength tests, it conducted these tests at the same 30-
foot level previously found to be inappropriate.  This position is supported by numerous previous
decisions in which the Bureau found that a station's signal should be tested at the same level the cable
operator uses to receive other similar stations it currently carries.  As WFMZ-TV correctly notes, the
Commission's Clarification Order requires that "[t]he cable operator . . . should use an antenna placed at
the same height as that currently used by the cable systems to receive broadcast signals."  The fact that
Suburban alleges that it initially tests all new signals at a 30-foot level is irrelevant and does not preclude
the system from testing WFMZ-TV's signal in a manner comparable to other UHF stations it currently
carries.
     XXXIX.    ORDERING CLAUSES
40.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by Suburban Cable
TV Co., Inc. (CSR-4053-A) IS DENIED.
41.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Suburban permit WFMZ-TV to install any specialized
equipment necessary and conduct signal quality tests at Suburban's principal headends within thirty (30)
days of the release date of this order.
42.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the petition for partial reconsideration filed by
Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. (CSR-4953-A) IS DENIED.
43.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the petition for reconsideration filed by Suburban Cable
TV Co., Inc. (CSR-4866-M) IS DENIED.
44.    These actions are taken pursuant to authority delegated by Sections 0.321 and 1.106 of the
Commission's rules.
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief
                              Cable Services Bureau