NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** i$//Denial of Greater Media's ADI deletion request, DA 95- //$ $//Grant of WNDS' must carry complaint//$ $/76.7 Special relief and must-carry complaint procedures/$ $/76.59 Modification of television markets/$ $/300.534 Carriage of local commercial television signals/$ Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington D.C. 20554 DA 95-2304 In re: ) ) Greater Worcester ) CSR-4427-A Cablevision, Inc., et al. ) ) For Modification of WNDS' ADI ) Market for Must Carry Purposes ) ) CTV of Derry, Inc., ) CSR-4512-M Licensee of Television Station WNDS, ) Derry, New Hampshire ) ) For Carriage on Greater Worcester ) Cablevision, Inc., et.al. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 31, 1995 Released: November 15, 1995 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. In the above-captioned proceeding, Greater Worcester Cablevision, Inc. and associated cable systems ("Greater Media") have asked the Commission to exclude certain Massachusetts cable communities from the area of dominant influence ("ADI") of Television Broadcast Station WNDS (Ind., Channel 50), Derry, New Hampshire, for must carry purposes. CTV of Derry, Inc., licensee of WNDS, filed an opposition to the petition for special relief to which Greater Media replied. In a separate but related proceeding CTV of Derry, Inc. filed a must carry complaint against the same cable operator demanding carriage on the same cable systems subject to the modification request. Greater Media filed an opposition to the complaint to which WNDS replied. We consolidate the two proceedings to resolve WNDS' signal carriage rights on Greater Media's cable systems. BACKGRO UND 2. Pursuant to 4 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, commercial television broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market. A station's market for this purpose is its "area of dominant influence" or ADI as defined by the Arbitron audience research organization. An ADI is a geographic market designation that defines each television market exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns. Essentially, each county in the United States is allocated to a market based on which home-market stations receive a preponderance of total viewing hours in the county. For purposes of this calculation, both over-the-air and cable television viewing are included. 3. Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in ADI areas. Section 4 provides that the Commission may: with respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section. In considering such requests, the Act provides that: the Commission shall afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as -- (I) whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; (II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; (III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community. 4. The legislative history of this provision indicates that: where the presumption in favor of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers losing access to local stations because they are outside the ADI in which a local cable system operates, the FCC may make an adjustment to include or exclude particular communities from a television station's market consistent with Congress' objective to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they serve and which form their economic market. * * * * * [This subsection] establishes certain criteria which the Commission shall consider in acting on requests to modify the geographic area in which stations have signal carriage rights. These factors are not intended to be exclusive, but may be used to demonstrate that a community is part of a particular station's market. 5. The Commission provided guidance in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, supra, to aid decision making in these matters, as follows: For example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission of documents listing the cable system's channel line-up (e.g., rate cards) for a period of years. To show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable community (factor 2), parties may demonstrate that the station places at least a Grade B coverage contour over the cable community or is located close to the community in terms of mileage. Coverage of news or other programming of interest to the community could be demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The final factor concerns viewing patterns in the cable community in cable and noncable homes. Audience data clearly provide appropriate evidence about this factor. In this regard, we note that surveys such as those used to demonstrate significantly viewed status could be useful. However, since this factor requires us to evaluate viewing on a community basis for cable and noncable homes, and significantly viewed surveys typically measure viewing only in noncable households, such surveys may need to be supplemented with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes. 6. In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that changes requested should be considered on a community-by-community basis rather than on a county-by-county basis and that they should be treated as specific to particular stations rather than applicable in common to all stations in the market. The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request. 7. Adding communities to a station's ADI generally entitles that station to insist on cable carriage in those communities. However, this right is subject to several conditions: 1) a cable system operator is generally required to devote no more than one-third of its activated channel capacity to compliance with the mandatory signal carriage obligations, 2) the station is responsible for delivering a good quality signal to the principal headend of the system, 3) indemnification may be required for any increase in copyright liability resulting from carriage, and 4) the system operator is not required to carry the signal of any station whose signal substantially duplicates the signal of any other local signal carried or the signals of more than one local station affiliated with a particular broadcast network. If, pursuant to these requirements, a system operator elects to carry the signal of only a single affiliate of a broadcast network, it is obliged to carry the affiliate from within the ADI whose city of license is closest to the principal headend of the cable system. Accordingly, based on the specific circumstances involved, the addition of communities to a station's ADI may guarantee it cable carriage and specific channel position rights; simply provide the system operator with an expanded list of must-carry signals from which to choose, i.e., when it has used up its channel capacity mandated for broadcast signals carriage, or determined which of duplicating network affiliated stations are entitled to carriage priority. MARKET MODIFICATION MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 8. Greater Media requests that the television market of WNDS be modified to exclude the communities served by its cable system, even though the Boston ADI encompasses both the station and the system. The operator states that WNDS, which currently is not being carried on the system, is more than 45 miles from Worcester and broadcasts primarily infomercials and off-network reruns such as "Bewitched" and "Happy Days." Greater Media argues that affording WNDS must carry rights in and around Worcester would be counter to the goals underlying the must carry regime, and seeks a modification of WNDS' television market due to "anomalous circumstances" surrounding the station's carriage request. The operator asserts that forced carriage of WNDS would have a "negative impact" on its ability to provide its customers with desired programming and that the station does not provide cable operators with locally responsive programming. 9. Greater Media argues that the statutory factors for market modification weigh in favor of deleting the cable communities from WNDS' market. Greater Media first asserts that it has never carried WNDS or any other New Hampshire station on the cable system. Moreover, no other cable system in Worcester and the immediate surrounding areas carried WNDS prior to the re-introduction of must carry. As for local coverage, Greater Media asserts that the system's headend in Oxford, Massachusetts, is outside of WNDS' Grade B contour and is located more than 45 miles from the WNDS transmitter located in Derry, New Hampshire. The operator further asserts that the station does not air programs of local concern for residents in the Massachusetts cable communities; moreover, it broadcasts less than four hours of programming geared to its own New Hampshire viewers during weekdays. With regard to carriage of other qualified stations, Greater Media states that its system carries a total of at least 11 local broadcast stations, including 9 commercial stations and 2 non- commercial stations with many of these stations offering extensive coverage of local news and events. The operator adds that its system also carries 3 local access channels and 1 local origination channel, each of which cablecasts local news and sports coverage. Finally, Greater Media contends that WNDS' market share is not significant in or around the cable communities because as it was unable to find any meaningful commercial ratings for the station within the area served by the system. The only ratings Greater Media could identify for WNDS were for the entire Boston DMA; the operator notes that between July 15 and July 17, 1994, as an example, Nielsen shows WNDS with no more than a .66% rating for the entire Boston market. 10. In its opposition, WNDS states that until recently it was considered a "distant signal" for copyright purposes and the costly requirement to indemnify the operator for copyright liability precluded carriage of the signal on Greater Media's cable system. WNDS remarks, however, that Congress recently amended the Copyright Act to make each station within its ADI "local" for copyright purposes. That development spurred the station to request carriage on Greater Media's system. WNDS notes that while Greater Media is not carrying the station due to signal strength concerns, this issue is being resolved and that the pendency of the instant petition should not excuse the operator from complying with its must carry obligations. WNDS asserts that the "unstated but obvious" objective of Greater Media's petition is to "shed some of its must carry responsibilities in order to make room for additional non-broadcast channels such as Court TV and the Sci-Fi Channel. WNDS also argues that Greater Media's petition is procedurally defective because it has not been served on non-superstation broadcast stations carried on the system. The station asks the Commission to dismiss the petition for special relief because of this procedural flaw. 11. As for Greater Media's showing with respect to the four statutory factors, WNDS states that the operator has failed to overcome the presumption in favor of carriage of WNDS throughout its entire market. First, WNDS maintains that the historical carriage factor should not be accorded great weight not only because this is a deletion case but because the station had been precluded from carriage since it was considered distant for copyright purposes. The station adds that the cable system has, in the past, carried New Hampshire Station WMUR-TV (ABC, Channel 9), Manchester, New Hampshire in Auburn, Leicester, and Spencer. With respect to the second factor, WNDS points out that Worcester is within its Grade B contour and that Greater Media has failed to provide information as to what portion of the system's subscribers and what communities are situated beyond the Grade B contour. The station also notes that Derry is not significantly farther from Worcester than is Boston and that Greater Media's carriage of numerous stations that are not significantly closer to Worcester than Derry "militates against deletion of WNDS from the ADI." As for the third statutory factor, WNDS argues that the operator makes no showing that the stations it currently carries air programming relevant to Worcester and surrounding areas. WNDS adds that if even Greater Media had made such a showing, it would be immaterial because the Commission has discounted this criterion when it does not enhance a station's case for market modification. WNDS defends its broadcast of local programming by stating that even though it does not air programs specifically targeting Worcester, it does provide informational programming of interest to residents of the entire region. WNDS cites such local programming as "WNDS News Upfront," "WNDS Sports Rap," "WNDS High School Sports Review," "Healthline," "Kids Connection," and "Rewind And Review," as well as broadcasts of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell hockey games and weather updates ten times a day, which is informational programming useful to Worcester residents. In addition, WNDS states it produces special productions of local interest including "NEW ENGLAND LAW IN REVIEW" and various political debates. The station claims that the grant of Greater Media's petition would result in the loss of this local programming without any offsetting benefit to the "value of localism." WNDS adds that 39% of all visitors to New Hampshire come from Massachusetts and that informational programming concerning New Hampshire carried on the station is of local interest to residents in the Boston ADI. With respect to evidence of viewing patterns, WNDS notes that Greater Media has provided no ratings on a community- by-community basis or even on a county-wide basis. The station adds that it is not "surprising" that its audience might be small given that it was distant for copyright and was not carried on cable systems in the Worcester area. 12. In reply, Greater Media first admits that it did not serve other non-superstation broadcast stations with a copy of its petition for special relief but adds that this should not be grounds for dismissal. Greater Media then states that it is serving a copy of its filing on those entities and would not object to such stations taking the full 20 days to respond to the petition as provided in 47 C.F.R. 76.7(d). Greater Media also objects to the implication that it has previously "discriminatorily denied carriage" to WNDS. The operator notes that WNDS does not address questions related to its signal strength in its opposition and does not claim that it has the required signal strength or that any Worcester cable subscribers can receive its signal over-the-air. 13. As for the four statutory factors, Greater Media first reiterates that WNDS has no history of carriage because it was never carried on any part of the cable system prior to the recent introduction of must carry. It then states that WNDS does not identify any factors that might outweigh its failure to establish historic carriage such as having a Grade A contour over the cable communities or stating that it is a new station in the market. Additionally, the operator argues that WNDS' reliance on Greater Media's predecessors' carriage of a different New Hampshire station approximately 20 years ago on a small portion of the system is misguided as it does not show any commonality between Derry and the Worcester cable communities. As for local coverage, Greater Media argues that Derry is geographically removed from its cable system; out of 21 communities representing approximately 115,195 subscribers, only West Boylston, Boylston, Holden, Northboro, Westboro, and Southboro are included in WNDS's Grade B contour. These communities represent about 17,116 subscribers, or 14% of the entire system, leaving roughly 86% of the subscribers including those in the City of Worcester outside the Grade B contour. Moreover, Greater Media maintains that the measure of inclusion in a Grade B contour is not whether the printed name of a city is within the contour line on a map, but whether the boundaries of the city itself falls outside the Grade B contour. Greater Media also contends that WNDS does not provide local interest programming for its Worcester area cable subscribers and that the programming the station does mention in its opposition are insufficient. Greater Media discounts WNDS's statement that 39% of all visitors come to New Hampshire because it adds nothing to the issue of whether WNDS provides local coverage to Greater Media's subscribers. The operator adds that WNDS does not argue that Greater Media does not provide evidence of programming coverage of Worcester system communities by other Boston ADI television stations. Finally, Greater Media states that WNDS fails to produce any figure of its own to rebut its showing regarding the negligible over-the-air viewership of the station in the cable system communities. ANALYSIS AND DECISION 14. We deny Greater Media's petition for special relief. We believe Greater Media has not pointed to particularized and persuasive evidence that the communities in question are not part of WNDS' market based on the four statutory or any other relevant factors. The use of ADI markets, according to the legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act, is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they service and which form their economic market." Changes may be sought and granted by the Commission "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements. The ADI market change process incorporated into the Communications Act, however, is not intended to be a process whereby cable operators may seek relief from the mandatory signal carriage obligations apart from the question of whether a change in the market area involved is warranted. Here, deletion of WNDS from the cable communities served by Greater Media would effectively remove the station from Worcester, Massachusetts, one of the ADI's primary population centers and a principal source of advertising revenue. Granting the operator's request would run counter to the goals of Congress as it would deny WNDS access to this important economic market. 15. Consideration of the statutory factors does not provide a persuasive case for altering this conclusion nor do we find that the arguments presented distinguish these cable communities from the rest of the market. With respect to the question of historical carriage patterns, we believe that the station's past distant copyright status and the related indemnification costs precluded carriage on Greater Media's cable systems, as well as on other area cable systems. For this reason, the station never had the opportunity to build a record of historical carriage. Moreover, the historical carriage factor is not controlling in these circumstances because the 1992 Cable Act would, in effect, prevent weaker stations like WNDS, which cable systems had previously declined to carry, from ever being carried. As such, failure to satisfy this statutory factor does not weigh against the station. 16. With regard to viewership, WNDS' lack of carriage could also explain why its ratings are low in the relevant cable communities and in the entire Boston ADI. We also recognize that WNDS is a struggling independent station and its past viewership share is not necessarily indicative of its potential audience now that copyright costs are no longer a barrier for it to be carried on local cable systems. Moreover, Congress could not have intended for a station like WNDS to be deleted from its market solely because its audience share is not as significant as the several other stations it competes with; if this were the case, the 1992 Cable Act would have designated a ratings mechanism, rather than ADIs, as the primary determinant for broadcast signal carriage. 17. We also find that WNDS provides local service as the majority of the cable communities' population falls within the station's predicted Grade B contour. First, we agree with WNDS that its Grade B contour sufficiently encompasses the heavily populated City of Worcester which, as discussed above, is the primary residential and commercial area served by Greater Media. In this regard, we note that the operator's engineering analysis, which it used to show that Worcester is not covered by WNDS' Grade B contour, is inconclusive; Greater Media does not provide us with sufficient technical evidence to rebut the station's claim that this community does indeed fall within the Grade B contour. In addition, the operator does not dispute that WNDS also places a Grade B contour over West Boylston, Boylston, Holden, Northboro, Westboro, and Southboro. In light of these findings and the other factors weighing against deletion noted herein, we also decide not to remove those cable communities that happen to fall just outside the station's Grade B contour. 18. Moreover, we do not believe that Greater Media's carriage of other local stations nor WNDS' apparent lack of community-specific programming are sufficient reasons to justify the deletion request. Greater Media has not demonstrated why it is necessary to remove itself from its own ADI, vis-a-vis WNDS, yet remain in the same market with regard to almost all of the station's competitors. We note that these stations, including independent Stations WSBK-TV (Ind., Channel 38), Boston, Massachusetts and WLVI-TV (Ind., Channel 56), Cambridge, Massachusetts, are as geographically distant to the cable communities as is WNDS, yet the operator carries these stations. We find that Greater Media's petition is inconsistent with Congressional intent which clearly states that the market modification policy was not provided as a means for cable systems to avoid their must carry obligations. 19. Finally, Greater Media's assertions about WNDS' signal quality, although relevant for the purposes of must carry, as explicated more fully below, are of less consequence when evaluating petitions to delete communities from certain markets. In any event, a full power television station, like WNDS, has the right to purchase the necessary equipment to cure signal quality deficiencies. If WNDS does opt to upgrade its equipment to provide a stronger signal, as the facts seem to indicate, then this would have the effect of negating one of the operator's principal argument for deletion---the lack of a Grade B contour over some of the cable communities. MUST CARRY COMPLAINT 20. WNDS begins its complaint by detailing the chronology of events leading up to the instant filing. WNDS states that it sent a carriage request letter to Greater Media on November 2, 1994, after recognizing that copyright liability was no longer an impediment to carriage on the operator's systems. On December 12, 1994, Greater Media responded by filing with the Commission the above captioned petition for special relief. In a letter dated December 13, 1994, Greater Media's Vice President Richard Tuthill wrote to WNDS' General Manager Donna Cole and said that WNDS' signal did not meet the +3.75 dBmV minimum required by the Commission's rules and therefore Greater Media did not intend to carry the channel. The letter also stated that if WNDS wished to have a witness present, Greater Media would be "happy to do the measurements again along with your representative." On December 27, 1994, Ms. Cole responded to Greater Media's letter and stated that representatives of the station's technical team will cooperate with the cable systems' technical staff. She also noted that WNDS' signal quality could be enhanced through use of improved antennas or amplification equipment. The station's technical advisors met with Greater Media's representatives on January 19, 1995. Thereafter, in a February 27, 1995 letter to Greater Media's Mr. Tuthill, Ms. Cole stated that WNDS proposed to engage a tower rigger to place an antenna, and any other necessary equipment, on the Greater Media tower for the purpose of making a measurement of WNDS' signal. On March 6, 1995, Greater Media responded that WNDS' letter was premature because of the pendency of Greater Media's petition for special relief and stated that "Greater Media deems it appropriate to take no further steps toward carriage of WNDS pending disposition of the market modification petition." WNDS asserts that the instant complaint is being filed within 60 days of the March 6th letter from Greater Media which constitutes a denial of WNDS' request for carriage. 21. WNDS asserts that it has satisfied all the preconditions for carriage on Greater Media's cable systems. First, the operator has not reached its maximum required must-carry capacity. Second, WNDS indicated that it will be responsible for the cost of delivering a good quality signal to the headend of Greater Media's system. Third, with the amendment of 17 U.S.C. 111(f), it is clear that carriage of WNDS on Greater Media's system will not result in any increased copyright liability. Finally, WNDS' signal does not substantially duplicate the signal of any other local station. As for Greater Media's argument that it is not required to add WNDS to the systems pending the market modification petition, the station counters by stating that stays are only applicable when communities are added to a station's ADI, not when communities might be deleted. WNDS comments that to hold otherwise provides an incentive to cable operators to file meritless market modification petitions simply to postpone fulfillment of their must carry obligations. 22. Greater Media opposes WNDS' complaint on several grounds. First, the operator argues that WNDS' complaint should be dismissed as untimely. Greater Media states that WNDS acknowledges that it rejected the WNDS carriage request, on signal strength grounds, in a letter from Richard Tuthill to Donna Cole on December 13, 1994 and then the station waited over four months to file the instant complaint with the Commission. According to the operator, the specific event triggering the complaint cycle to commence is contained in the following language: "the WNDS signal does not meet the minimum signal strength required by the Commission's rules and therefore Greater Media did not intend to carry the channel." WNDS ignores the December 13, 1994 correspondence and suggests that the specific event was a letter to Donna Cole dated March 6, 1995. However, according to the operator, this letter was not a refusal of WNDS' carriage request, rather, the letter merely refused to conduct additional signal strength tests during the pendency of the ADI market modification petition. Moreover, Greater Media clarifies that its offer on December 13, 1994, to perform joint signal strength tests was not an invitation to continue tests indefinitely with different signal enhancing equipment until an appropriate signal strength could be created. Greater Media concludes this portion of its argument by stating that subsequent correspondence between itself and the station does not amount to additional formal requests from WNDS nor do they restart the 60 day time period. 23. Greater Media also argues that even if WNDS' complaint had been timely filed, the Commission should not require that the station be carried on its systems because WNDS does not provide a "good quality signal" to its principal headend. The operator states that WNDS provides no record evidence to refute the signal tests performed by Greater Media. Moreover, the station provides no record evidence suggesting that an antenna array on Greater Media's tower, and possibly an amplifier installed in the line between the antenna and the processor, would increase WNDS' signal level to the required -45 dBm. Finally, the addition of any antenna would necessarily require that an engineering study be performed to determine if the tower could safely accommodate an additional antenna, either temporarily or permanently. Greater Media asserts that it cannot be expected to expend capital to perform such a study or to meet any conditions such a study may determine are required for the addition of another antenna. 24. Finally, Greater Media suggests that the status quo be maintained because the ADI issue in the above captioned market modification request is unresolved. The operator urges the Commission to reject WNDS' contention that a station should be added while a petition is pending in a deletion case. Greater Media also objects to WNDS' suggestion that its market modification was meritless and filed "simply to postpone fulfillment of their must carry obligations." The operator asserts that given WNDS' poor signal quality and its inadequate showing that it meets the four market factors in 4 of the 1992 Cable Act, such a suggestion "is disingenuous at best." 25. In its reply, WNDS states that Greater Media incorrectly focuses on the December 13, 1994, letter as the triggering event for the station to file a must carry complaint. The station argues that the operator fails to note that WNDS accepted in a timely fashion the invitation to conduct additional measurements of the WNDS signal and, after those measurements were taken, advised Greater Media of the steps WNDS would take to improve WNDS' reception at the Greater Media headend. Instead, WNDS argues, the March 6, 1995 correspondence from Greater Media, which states that the operator would take no further steps toward carriage of WNDS pending the market modification request, is the event triggering the complaint process. Moreover, WNDS asserts that the Commission case law cited by the operator to support its claim of untimely filing, did not involve situations in which the station seeking carriage was attempting to resolve signal strength issues in order to secure its statutorily mandated must carry rights. 26. Citing the Clarification Order in MM Docket No. 92-259, WNDS argues that the Commission has made it clear that if a station does not initially meet the criteria for must carry status, it subsequently may assert its rights once it satisfies those criteria. In this case, WNDS was seeking to take the measures necessary (i.e., installation of an antenna and amplification equipment) to satisfy the conditions for must carry status, and Greater Media has "unlawfully blocked" WNDS from satisfying those conditions. WNDS also rebuts the operator's "lack of record evidence" argument by asserting that there is no way of WNDS knowing if new equipment will indeed boost its signal into an acceptable range because Greater Media itself has impeded the gathering of such evidence. With regard to Greater Media's assertions regarding its cable tower, WNDS states that the operator's previous correspondence makes no reference to this "impediment" and its opposition includes no engineering data to support the proposition. In any event, WNDS' engineering consultant believes that the installation of an antenna and amplifier to receive the station's signal would not materially increase the windloading on the Greater Media tower and that such equipment could be safely accommodated on the tower. Finally, WNDS argues that Greater Media's market modification petition does not excuse compliance with its must carry request because the Commission's language about maintaining the status quo during the pendency of a petition applies only in the context of adding communities to particular markets. ANALYSIS AND DECISION 27. We are not persuaded by the arguments raised by Greater Media in its opposition and we grant WNDS' must carry complaint. First, we do not believe WNDS recognized that Greater Media rejected the station's carriage request in a letter from the operator to the station on December 13, 1994 since the station undertook further efforts, with the cooperation of the cable operator, to conduct joint signal quality tests. Moreover, if the operator did formally deny the station carriage in this correspondence, then Greater Media would not have had the need to state that "it [is] appropriate to take no further steps toward carriage of WNDS pending disposition of the market modification petition" as it is written in its March 6, 1995 letter to the station. We also find, contrary to the assertions of Greater Media, that the subsequent correspondence between the two parties concerned the appropriate steps for testing the station's signal quality and addressed whatever technical measures were necessary to carry WNDS' signal. Since WNDS filed its complaint within 60 days of Greater Media's March 6, 1995 rejection, its complaint is timely. 28. WNDS has satisfied all the necessary preconditions for carriage on Greater Media's cable system. First, the operator has not reached its maximum required must-carry capacity on its system. Second, WNDS indicated that it will be responsible for the cost of delivering a good quality signal to the headend of Greater Media's system. Third, with the amendment of 17 U.S.C. 111(f), carriage of WNDS on Greater Media's system will not result in any increased copyright liability. Finally, WNDS' signal does not substantially duplicate the signal of any other local station. Accordingly, Greater Media is required to carry WNDS' signal within the time-frame established below. Since we resolve Greater Media's market modification petition along with WNDS' must carry complaint, we need not reach the issue regarding the cable operator's compliance with the Commission's signal carriage requirements during the pendency of a deletion request. ORDER 29. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534, and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59, that the "Petition for Special Relief" (CSR-4427-A) filed December 12, 1994, by Greater Worcester Cablevision, Inc. IS DENIED. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the petition (CSR-4512-M) filed May 2, 1995, by CTV of Derry, Inc., IS GRANTED. Greater Worcester Cablevision, Inc. is therefore required to carry the signal of WNDS on its system serving the aforementioned communities. CTV of Derry, Inc. shall notify Greater Media in writing of its carriage and channel position elections, (76.56, 76.57, 76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules), within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Greater Media shall come into compliance with the applicable rules within sixty (60) days of such notification. 31. These actions are taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau