GLR and HH Reply to

REPLY submitted by GLR Southern California, LLC

Reply to Opposition to STA Extension

2019-02-08

This document pretains to 325-STA-20180710-00002 for Special Temporal Authority on a Permit to Foreign Broadcast filing.

IBFS_325STA2018071000002_1622571

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WaASIHINGTON, D.C. 20584 Inte GLR Southem Califomia, LLC Application for Exteasion of Special Temporary File No. 325 A—20180710—00002 Authority For Delivery of Progrimming to Mexican Station XEWW—AM, Rosarit, Beju California Norte, Mexico To: Office ofthe Secretary Attn.; Chief, lntemational Buresu REPLY To OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORITY EXTENSION GLR SoutherCalifornia,LLC (°GLR®) and its parent company, H&cH Group USA LLC (‘H&H®), bytheir attormeys, hereby reply to the Opposition to Special TemporaryAuthority ("STA") Extension (*Opposition‘) filed by Chincse Sound of Oriental and West Horitage (*Chinese Sound") on January 29,2019." 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Chinese Sound opposes the extension ofthe existing STA that the Commission granted GL& on July 24, 2018 to deliver cross—border transmissions of broadcast programs to Mexican station XEWW(AM), Rosarita, Baja California® In the Opposiion. Chinese Sound fails to provide any evidence suggesting that the programming delivered by GLR to XEWW is not ! e Oppositionto Special Temporary Authority Extension ofChine Sound of Orienialand West Heritage, Fle No, 325—8TA—20180710—00002 (filed Jan. 29, 2019) (‘Opposition"). * See Application for Special Temporary AuthorityofGLR, Pile No. 325—5T A—201 80710—00002 (filed July 10, 2018), Public Notice, Perit to Delver Prograns to Foreign Broudcast Staions, Report No 325—00215 (re. July 24, 2018)(‘Intial STA®).

serving the public interest, or otherwise violetes the Commission‘s rules.. Instead, Chinoso Sound merely rchashes old arguments against the pending Application for Permi to Deliver Programs to Poreign Broadeast Stations (*Application"‘", and raises an untimalyobjection to the grant ofthe Initial STA to GLR. Grant of Chinese Sound‘s Opposition would upset the setted expectations of the partiesand listeners to XEWW based on grossly untimely procedural arguments and other unsupported allogations. ‘The Commission must recognize the Opposition for what iL is — another attempt to delay the pending Application byobfliscating the issucs through filing baseless pleadings. As GLE has previously stated, an opponent does not receive unlimited chances to continue to raise concerns in order to delay processing of an application. Thus, as sot forth in more detail below, the Opposition must be rejected, und the Initial STA should accordingly be extended untl the Commission completes its review of the pondiag application. IL CHINESE SOUND PROVIDES NO REASON TO DENY THE STA EXTENSION. Chinese Sound first urgues that the Initil STA which GLR seeks to extend was improperly granted. ‘This argument is nothing but an untimely petition for reconsideration of the grant of the Intial STA. The itial STA, granted in July, has been in place for over six months. See, FCC File No. 325—NEW—20180674—00001 (iled Tune 14, 2018)." Pursuent to statute and Commission rales,if Chinose Sound wanled to suggest that the Initial STA was improperly granted, it had 30 days in which to file a petition for reconsideration, asking thatthe action be undone." Instead, Chinese Sound is now rmises these procedural issues, even though the grant of > See, FCC Fite No, 323—NEW—20180614—00001 (iled June 14, 2018 " See Ttiel STA * See 47 USC §105; 47 CBR. § 1.10; see also. eRGTL(AMD, Homer, AK, Fueiy 1D No. $2132, et al., etter, FCC Red 6786, 6794 n. 54 (2017) (dismissing some arguments made because hey sought

the Initial STA long ago became final, and is no longer subject to review, reconsideration, or eppeal. Thus, the time has pussed for these argurments to be considered. Thus, those procedural arguments in the Opposition relating to the grant ofthe Initial STA must be refeeted. as they are nothing but a grossly urtimely petition for reconsideration of the grunt of the Inital STA, and (berefore are not properly considered in connection with the consideration of the application now before the Commission.® Moreaver, Chinese Sound‘s suggestion that STAs are onlto be granted for special events not of a continuing nature is not supported by precedent. For support of its argument, it cites a 1994 case," where Fox Television Stations, Inc, (*Fox") requested an STA to trensmit NFL football games to three Mexican teleision stations. But Chinese Sound ignores subsequent istory in the same case, where the Court ofAppeals recognived that Fox was granted an STA because of the likely delays in the timely grant ofthe Section 325.° Purther, the Commission, after the case was remunded, extended Fox‘s STA while the remand was being considered to allow Fox to deliver all e Fox programming that Fox delivered to its afiliaes to the Mexican stetion while the Section 325 application was being considered, not in any way limiting it to untimely reconsideration of a Commission decision and should have been included in a pertion for reconsidezation ied within 30 days of the inal decision}; Public Media ofNew England. In. Applicationfor a New LPFM Station at Haverkil, Messachusetis, Memorandum Opinion and Ordor, 30 FCC Red 14922, 14024 (2015) (Ainding a Petiion for Review was cssentialy an untimely and defimct pelition for reconsidermtion, and reminding the public tatthe Commission generally acks the authority to extend or waive the 30—day stattory fiing period for ptiions forroconsiderati " 1t should also be noted that Chinese Sound has had more then ample opportinity to ruise any issues that it wanted aboutthe oporstion of GLR pursuant to the Titial STA and as detailed below, hasraised no Iegully copnizable issue about such operations, Thus,there is no substantive reason for the Commission to reexamine the grant ofthe Inial STA. " Oppositonat5—6 (citing Molly Pauker, 9 FCC Red 4394 (MB 1999)). " Channel 51 ofSan Diego, Inc. v. Pederal Communications Comnission, T9 F34, 187 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

football programming." The programming was detivered in real time — "live" as it was delivered to the affiliates ~ just as the programming delivered by GLR is delivered in real time, addressing the events of the day including traffc, weather and other current information. Since the Fox decision, STAs have routinely been granted to applicaats secking permanent Section 325 authorizations to provide a full schedule of programming while their applications for permunent suthority are being proccssed (includiag one noted in a Commission Public Notice as recently as this wook)."" There is no reason to depart from that precedent here, particulsely since Chinese Sound could have raised this argument when the Initil STA was grunted more than six months ago, before parties comumitted resources tothe station and before sudiences begun litening to the programming. For these reasons, this untimely request to reconsider the grant ofthe Initial STA must be refected, and this ergument againstthe grant of the STA extonsion denied."" ItL THE CONTINUED OPRRATION OF XEWW(AM) WILL NOT CAUSE INTERFERENCE, NOR WILL ITRAISE U.8, NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE Chinese Sound also argues that grant ofthe STA extension will cause interference to U.S. stations, and that it willimperilthe security of the United States by providing a platform for * Application uf Fox TelevisianStations,Inc. For a Permit to Transnlt Program Material to Mexican elevision stationXETY, Tivana, Mexico, 11 PCC Red 14870 w423 (1996). See, . Uniradio Corp., 27 CC Red 2337 (20123; Public Notice, Pernitto Deltver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations, Report No. 325—00143 (rel. Jan. 6, 2010); Public Notice, Permitto Deliver Prograns to Foreign Broadcast Stations, Report No. 325—00146 (rel. May 4, 2010Public Notice, Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Rroadcast Suations, Report No. 325—00217 {rel. ¥ob, 6 2019) © in passing, Chinese Sound raises the issue asto whether the Inital STA should heve been applied for in the name ofH&HL, the parent company of GLR. As GLR hold the rightst physical asscts ofthe Mexican station, and the contracmualrights to deliver progremming to XEWW(AM, the Iniial STA was properly granted to GLB. Chinese Sound makes no substantive allegations supportingits argument thet the grant to GLR was improper.

Chinese interests to undermine U.8. nationalinterests. ‘These arguments were reised previously byChinese Sound, and shown by GLR to have no merit The interference argumentis unfounded, as shown at pages 17 to 18 of GLR‘s Response to Unauthorized Filings, submitted in reply to the untimely "Supplement" and "Realy® filed by Chinese Sound on September 4 and 11, 2018."" GLR is not proposing any changes to the existing facilitios of XEWW, which were approved long before the station began to broadcast Chinese language programzming. The existing cilitis ofXEWW have been in place for some time and have been approved in previous Section 325 applications. None ofthe stations to which Chinese Sound suggests that interference will be caused have objected. In short, because the Application proposes no technical changes, and XEWW will be operating regardless of whetherthe Application is grented, the claimm by Chinese Sound is bascless The argument that the grant of the GLR application will somehowimperit U.S. security is elso unavailing. GLR has demonstrated in great detail thatitis primazily providling Chineso= language music and entertainment programming."*. The programming is not propaganda, nor is it provided by the Chinese goverment. Itis commercial programming provided in conjunction with a publically—traded commercial Hong Kong—based company‘© that already provides significant tlvision programming t0 U.S. multichannel video programming distributor " See, eg. Oppositionto Petiton to Deny of GL& Southem Caltfornia and TIeHGrowp, File No. 325NBEW—20180614—0000](fled Aug. 29, 2018) GLLR Opposition"}; ee also Response to Unathorized Pilings ofGLR Southem Califoria, File No. S2SNEW—20180614—00001,at 7—12 (filed Sept. 24, 2018) ((Response‘). " Response at 17—18 (explaining that "Chincse Sound has no standingto arguo on bebalfof other] stations,its claims are untimcly, an they substantively fil.). " See Response at6 12. "" See Response t 3 n. 28 (*The majortyof Phosaix HK‘s shares are owrned by sharcholders that have no knownlinkage to the Govermment ofthe People‘s Republic of China o to the Chinese Communist Pany.")

audiences. If the programming was trily a securityrisk, one would assume that Chinose Sound would be able to identify examples ofthe propaganda that has been broudcast over the lassix months. It has not. Instead, Chinese Sound has simplystercotyped the programming by effectively claiming that as the programming is in Chinesc it must therefore have been controlled by the Chinese government. It has not provided any credible evidence to support its suggestion that the programming delivered to the stationis in any way detrimental to the public interest. Its conclusory allegations, including its repestedcitationof stdies on Chinese propagands without providing any link to the programming carried on the station, must be rejected by the Commission Iv. CONCLUSION In short the Oppositionrepresents a baseloss attempt by Chinese Sound to prevent competition in the Chincsc—language broadcast marketplace. "The filing represents yet snother atempt to bury the Commission in paper, and waste the Commission‘s time and resources, in the hope ofeatching attention and delaying grant of the Application. GLR has demonstrated in numerous pleadings thatthere aro simply no grounds to deny untimely Opposition must be rejected, and the STA extended. Respectfully submitted, GUR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC Wilkinson Barker Knaucr, LLP 1800 M Street, N.W., Suito 800N Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 783—4141 David Oxenford Dated: February 8, 2019 Jis Artorneys , GLR Opposition; Response. 6

CertimCATE ofSERVICE 1, Rhea Lytle, a logal secrotary with the lawfrm of Wilkinson Barker Knauce, LLP, hereby centfythat on this 8° dayof February, 2019, 1 served copios of the forogoing "Reply To Opposition to Special Temporary AuthorityExtension" on the following via lirsk—class United Siates muil, postage prepaid: Reid Aveit Duane Moris, LLP 505 9" Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 200042166 James L. Winston Rubin, Winston, Diecoks, Haris & Cooke, LLP 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 Brandon Moss* International Burea Rederal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Janice Shields* International Burcau Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Stree, S.W. Washinglon, D.C. 20554 *Via Email c Es Rhea Lyle


Document Created: 2019-02-08 15:43:25
Document Modified: 2019-02-08 15:43:25
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC