2. The Appendix to this Protocol may be amended by an exchange of letters between the 3. This Protocol shall apply to the provision by Satellites licensed by the Parties of video or video/audio distributed to cable television head-end and multipoint distribution service (restricted microwave television service) facilities one year from the date of signature of this Protocol, unless a Protocol between the Parties on Fixed-Satellite Services which covers video or video/audio distribution to cable television head-end and multipoint distribution service facilities enters into force prior to that date. This paragraph does not affect the rights of the Parties to apply laws, regulations, rules, and licensing procedures of the Parties governing the provision of cable television service and multipoint distribution services to end users. 4. In addition, the Parties recognize that technological convergence is leading to different types of satellite systems providing similar services. Therefore, the Parties agree to initiate negotiations in a number of satellite areas related to the services being provided under this Protocol within five years of the entry into force of this Protocol. These satellite-related areas include Fixed-Satellite Services, Mobile-Satellite Services for both geostationary and non-geostationary satellite systems, and audio-only services. 5. This Protocol shall remain in force until it is replaced by a new Protocol, or until it is terminated in accordance with Article XI of the Agreement. 6. 7. In addition to the provisions for termination in accordance with Article XI of the determines that the other Party has failed to conform to the principles set forth in Upon termination of this Protocol, an Administration may, at its discretion, terminate any License that had been issued pursuant to this Protocol. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective representatives have signed the present Protocol. Done at Washington, this eighth day of November, 1996, in duplicate, in the English and Spanish languages, both texts being equally authentic. FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE Denya B. McCann FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 1. 2. APPENDIX The following frequency bands are referred to in Article IV of this Protocol: 1 This frequency band is not available for use in the United States, and has limitations in Mexico. 1. Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision"), an operator of cable television systems serving various Michigan communities. has filed a petition for partial reconsideration of the Bureau's decision in Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al. ("Cablevision I').' released on November 21. 1996. By that decision, the Bureau held that Cablevision's contention that Station WOOD-TV (NBC. Channel 8). Grand Rapids, Michigan had made inconsistent signal carriage elections in Kalamazoo, Michigan was moot, and that Cablevision's similar contention, raised in a supplement filed eleven months after Cablevision's initial petition, that WOOD-TV had made inconsistent signal carriage elections in Comstock Township, Michigan, was not conclusively demonstrated. Cablevision argues that these two holdings are in error, and seeks reconsideration. WOOD-TV and Station WAVY-TV (NBC. Channel 10). Portsmouth, Virginia have opposed Cablevision's petition, and Cablevision has replied.3 } DA 96-1851, 11 FCC Rcd 2 (released November 21, 1996). As part of Cablevision's petition. U.S. Cable Television Group, L.P. ["U.S. Cable"], a subsidiary of Cablevision, sought a similar ruling with respect to carriage elections made by WAVY-TV. This request was denied. In addition, U.S. Cable filed two petitions that were consolidated for processing with Cablevision's petition. One petition. CSR-4791-N. sought to waive U.S. Cable's obligation to provide nonduplication protection to Station WAVY-TV (NBC. Channel 10), Portsmouth, Virginia, and the other petition, CSR-4792-A, sought to modify the markets of both WAVY-TV and Station WITN-TV (NBC, Channel 7), Washington, North Carolina, removing the communities served by U.S. Cable from WAVY-TV's market and placing them into the market of WITN-TV. Had U.S. Cable succeeded in these petitions, it would no longer be obligated either to carry WAVY-TV or to provide the station with nonduplication protection. These petitions were also denied. U.S. Cable has not sought stay or reconsideration of these portions of the Bureau's decision. 3 Cablevision has also filed an "Emergency Petition for Stay Pending Reconsideration" of those portions of the Bureau's decision in Cablevision I which are the subject of Cablevision's petition for partial reconsideration. In addition, parties have filed certain supplemental pleadings. In view of our decision herein, we dismiss Cablevision's 2. BACKGROUND This case arises from carriage disputes between Cablevision and WOOD-TV. Although WOOD-TV had been carried on Cablevision's systems pursuant to retransmission consent agreements, these agreements expired on January 15, 1996, and Cablevision ceased carriage of WOOD-TV. On January 24, 1996, however, Cablevision resumed carriage of WOOD-TV. Cablevision filed a petition for declaratory ruling the next day, seeking Commission agreement with Cablevision's claim that, for various reasons, the retransmission consent elections of WOOD-TV were invalid, and that the station has therefore defaulted to must-carry status with respect to Cablevision's systems. 3. Pursuant to §325 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259. no commercial television broadcast signal may be retransmitted without the express authority of the originating station. This authority may be expressed by a station's election of mandatory carriage rights pursuant to §614 of the Act, or by negotiating with a cable television system the right to retransmit the station's signal. The choice between retransmission consent and must-carry rights was initially made by commercial stations by June 17, 1993. to be effective October 6. 1993 through December 31. 1996. Subsequent elections were to have been made by October 1, 1996. to take effect January 1, 1997; and will be made every three years thereafter. Television stations having must-carry rights who fail to make an election by the specified deadline are deemed to have elected must-carry status for the subject three-year period." 4. Cablevision argued in its petition that WOOD-TV had made inconsistent carriage elections in Kalamazoo, because WOOD-TV elected carriage by retransmission consent on Cablevision's Kalamazoo system, but also elected to be carried as a must-carry signal on the cable system serving the campus of Western Michigan University ("WMU"), a state university located in Kalamazoo. Cablevision therefore argued that, with respect to these systems. WOODTV had acquired must-carry status by default. WOOD-TV responded that WMU is a separate franchise area from Kalamazoo, citing a letter from Don M. Schmidt, City Attorney for Kalamazoo. WOOD-TV subsequently noted in a letter dated October 10, 1996 that it elected carriage by retransmission consent on both systems for the period January 1, 1997 through December 31. 1999. On November 6, 1996, Cablevision filed an additional pleading arguing that 47 C.F.R. §76.64(f)(1), (2). New television stations are to make their initial election between 60 days prior to commencing broadcast and 30 days after commencing broadcast, to take effect 90 days following the date the election is made. 47 C.F.R. §76.64(f)(4). ⚫ 47 C.F.R. $76.64(f)(3). |