Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-140
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
WHDT-DT, Channel 59, Stuart, Florida 
Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Digital 
Broadcast Stations Have Mandatory Carriage
Rights
Petition for Partial Reconsideration
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR-5562-Z
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 28, 2008 Released:  June 12, 2008
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Adelphia Communications Corporation (“Adelphia”) filed a Petition for Partial 
Reconsideration of the Commission’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (“WHDT Order”) in the above-
captioned proceeding.1 Adelphia is seeking reconsideration of only that portion of the Commission’s Order
that gives a television station the option of electing cable carriage for its digital signal in a converted analog 
format.  Guenter Marksteiner, Permittee of WHDT-DT, Channel 59, Stuart, Florida (“WHDT”) filed an 
Opposition to Adelphia’s Petition.2 Adelphia filed a Reply.3
  
1WHDT-DT, Channel 59, Stuart, Florida: Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Digital Broadcast Stations have 
Mandatory Carriage Rights, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 2692 (2001). Comcast Corporation and 
Time Warner recently acquired the assets of Adelphia Communications Corporation.  In the Matter of Applications 
for Consent to the Assignment and/or Transfer of Control of Licenses: Adelphia Communications Corporation (and 
subsidiaries, debtors-in-possession), Assignors to Time Warner Cable Inc. (subsidiaries), Assignees; Adelphia 
Communications Corporation (and subsidiaries, debtors-in-possession), Assignors and Transferors to Comcast 
Corporation (subsidiaries), Assignees and Transferees; Comcast Corporation, Transferor, to Time Warner, Inc.; 
Transferee; Time Warner, Inc., Transferor, to Comcast Corporation, Transferee, 21 FCC Rcd 8203 (2006).  As part 
of that proceeding, the parties requested that the Commission’s grant of its consent to the transactions include and 
accommodate, as appropriate, applications that will have been filed by such licensees relating to such cable systems 
that are pending at the time of the consummation of the transactions.  In this matter, we also will take that request to 
include this pending petition for reconsideration.  Therefore, the action we take in this proceeding will transfer to the 
successor-in-interest, which is Comcast.  The instant proceeding is unrelated to the recent Media Bureau Order, 
adopted on May 27, 2008 (DA No. 08-1212), acting on a mandatory carriage complaint initiated by Guenter 
Marksteiner, permittee of television station WHDT-DT, Stuart, Florida, against Comcast Cable Communications, 
LLC and its subsidiary, Comcast Cable of Florida/Georgia LLC.
2 Paxson Communications Corporation (“Paxson”) also filed in Opposition to Adelphia’s Petition.
3 The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (“NCTA”) filed a Reply in support of Adelphia’s Petition.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-140
2
II.        BACKGROUND
2. In June 2000, WHDT filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling asking the Commission to 
declare that a new digital-only (“DTV”) television station that seeks carriage of a single channel of video 
programming is entitled to mandatory carriage under Section 614 of the Act.  In the WHDT Order, the 
Commission concluded that, pursuant to Section 614(a), WHDT was entitled to cable carriage of its 
digital broadcast signal within the West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce television market.4 The Commission held 
that broadcasters initiating DTV-only service were entitled to mandatory carriage for their digital signals 
consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.5 The Commission stated that WHDT was 
entitled to make its cable carriage election in accordance with the provisions of Section 76.64(f)(4) of the 
Commission’s rules.  The Commission also held that a digital-only television station may demand 
carriage of its digital signal in a converted analog format provided that the station pays the cost of 
downconverting the signal.  The carriage rights of digital-only television stations and the policy regarding 
downconversion were matters also raised and resolved in the Commission’s Digital Broadcast Signal 
Carriage First Report and Order (“DTV Order”) in CS Docket No. 98-120.6
III. DISCUSSION
3. Adelphia presents three arguments in support of its Petition for Partial Reconsideration.  
First, Adelphia argues that the Commission lacks the statutory authority, under Section 614 of the Act, to 
order a digital signal to be carried in a converted analog format.7 Second, Adelphia argues that providing 
analog carriage rights to digital-only stations is unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny First 
Amendment test, as applied in Turner v. FCC, because there is insufficient record evidence that a digital-
only station needs analog carriage rights.8 Third, Adelphia argues that mandating carriage of a digital 
signal in a converted analog format is inconsistent with the basic cable carriage policy of preserving the 
availability of broadcast stations for households that do not subscribe to cable service.9 Adelphia 
contends that granting carriage rights to a digital-only broadcast station well before the vast majority of 
households can receive it over the air does not preserve the availability of such a signal for those 
households.
 
4. In response to Adelphia’s arguments, WHDT asserts that the Commission has broad 
authority under Section 614(b)(4)(B) to make any changes in the broadcast signal carriage rules to ensure 
  
4 Section 614(a) provides that “[e]ach cable operator shall carry, on the cable system of that operator, the signals of 
local commercial television stations … as provided by this section.”  47 U.S.C. § 534(a). 
5 WHDT Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2698.
6 See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals – Amendments to Part 76 of the Commission’s Rules; 
Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 – Local Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues; 
Application of Network Non-Duplication, Syndicated Exclusivity and Sports Blackout Rules to Satellite 
Retransmission of Broadcast Signals, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC 
Rcd 2598 (2001).
7 Adelphia Petition for Partial Reconsideration (“Petition”) at 2. 
8 Id. at 6 noting that the Turner decisions rested on a well-developed record, consisting of “tens of thousands of 
pages” that included “materials acquired during Congress’ three years of pre-enactment hearings, . . .as well as 
additional expert submissions, sworn declarations and testimony, and industry documents.”  See Turner 
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 187 (1997)(“Turner II”).
9 Adelphia Petition at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-140
3
carriage of DTV stations.10 WHDT states that the digital-to-analog conversion policy enunciated by the 
Commission is one of those changes permitted under the Act.  With regard to Adelphia’s constitutional 
claim, WHDT argues that the burden of carrying its signal in an analog format will be no different from 
the burden on a cable system resulting from the carriage of an analog station, and that such a burden has 
already been upheld in the Turner cases.11 WHDT argues that there is no need to build a voluminous 
record because the carriage burden imposed on Adelphia in this context is equivalent in bandwidth and 
function to the transmission of an analog broadcast signal.12 As for the policy arguments presented, 
WHDT states that the preservation of DTV service for an over-the-air audience would be accomplished 
through carriage of WHDT’s analog feed by allowing viewers to see the station while DTV receivers 
penetrate the market.13
5. Our response to Adelphia’s Petition is governed by Section 1.106 of the Commission’s 
rules.14 The Commission generally does not entertain arguments on Reconsideration that have already 
been considered or re-open the record unless circumstances have changed since the last opportunity the 
parties had to present such matters.15 In this instance, we find that Adelphia’s statutory, constitutional, 
and policy arguments were all raised and addressed by the Commission in the WHDT Order and no new 
circumstances were asserted in the operator’s Petition for Partial Reconsideration.  Given that the facts 
and law in this proceeding have not changed since we rendered our prior Order, there is no evidentiary 
basis warranting reversal.  For these reasons, we affirm our decision in the WHDT Order and deny the 
Petition for Partial Reconsideration.  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by 
Adelphia Cable Communications, IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
10 WHDT Opposition at 7.
11 Id. at 15.
12 Id. at 10.
13 Id. at 8.  
14 Declaratory ruling proceedings are subject to the same administrative regulations as are adjudicatory proceedings. 
Petitions for Reconsideration of Commission Orders in this context, therefore, are governed by Section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.     
15 See id.