WPCd 28BH@ ZRoman3|KRoman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg\\GO\d*,KO.wROOn\CfxKxWlRx\]\cdIfIs`Wx\rriwgd((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKSXPPS - PS4 Rm. 907_1XPPSPS.WRSSX\  P6G; P2jjz3|j I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2#3a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"""5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!94)0400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-2-442-7-7077-7-94944444$42++)7474444(4)0(N$2+00020000-00000000t0>77+0c7<&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-2y.K8?XpK\  P@QP 7PC2X XP\  P6QXP.!7UC2XXU4  pQX"W!0(Xh0\  P6QhP#I-!&X,-\  P@Q,P$y.C8*XpC\  P6QP.y.G8*XNG4  pQ"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[\\[^\d*C`^.wRSSn\Cfx`xWlRx\]\cdIfIs`Wx\rriwgd*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS2Y@}L@O @R@YV"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[\\[_\d*C`_.wRSSn\Cfx`xWlRx\]\cdIfIs`Wx\rriwgd*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^!,6CCoh,,CK!,!%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`YY`QJ``,4`Qw``J`YJQ``~``Q,%,?C,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC,4%CC`CC;@@H!,,,,57,CC`;`;`;`;`;wYY;Q;Q;Q;Q;,%,%,%,%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`C`C`C`CJC`C`;`;Y;Y;Y;Q;Q;Q;`C`C``C`C`C`C5C,C,,,C4`CQ%Q7`C`C`Cw`Y,Y7J4J4N/!(-((((((((((---#J:55:1-:::1G::-:5-1::K::1&(#(#(#(((>((((((:((#&&+  !((:#:#:#:#:#G55#1#1#1#1#:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:#:(:(:(:(:(-(:(:#:#5#5#5#1#1#1#:(:(::(:(:(:( (((:(11!:(:(:(G:55!--N$(#(((((<<(==(<##(P((NP#Pt,,,,-O,0S .-B9(@OSB((===5E,C1:.:*4':,-,/0#1#7.=*:,@7=72920>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!((C>(-((((((((((---#J:55:1-:::1G::-:5-1::K::1&(#(#(#(((>((((((:((#&&+>>>(#P((P-G>>>>##(PN:>>:(((((=(-=( ,.$(<<<#::::::G51111:::::::-::::::-(######5#####(((((((,(((((((2d @Y @ ]^K`"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[\\[q\d*C`q.wRSSn\Cfx`xWlRx\]\cdIfIs`Wx\rriwgd*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5@^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CC!CCPRCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdYYo8oRdddzNzRdNdNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdy.K8?XpK\  P@QP 7PC2X XP\  P6QXP .!7UC2XXU4  pQX"W!0(Xh0\  P6QhP#I-!&X,-\  P@Q,P$y.C8*XpC\  P6QP .%y.G8*XNG4  pQ&a$6,!X6\  P6QP': X \  P6QP({,C8*X9-qC*f9 xQX+5PC2X9XP*f9 xQXX8xCdXX-Xx{2 PQXP2d yO- X   ( X-x #Xj\  P6G; XP# Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 96829 ă  yxdddy (Պv3  x #C\  P6QpP# x Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO Washington, D.C. 20554 3 x#K\  P@QpP#3ԃ  x X01Í ÍX01Í Í x   X -#Xj\  P6G; XP#In re:x` `  hh@) x` `  hh@)  X-Petition of Time Warner New York@)hhCSR4416A(#  X-City Cable Group hh@) x` `  hh@)  X-For Modification of ADI forhh@)  X-Station WRNN, Kingston, NYhh@)h  XQ -|  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  X# -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: MC yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.59.>  X-x MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ă  X|- ` x8.` ` In its petition, Time Warner requests that the Commission delete New York City  xfrom the television market of station WRNN, Kingston, New York. Time Warner generally  xasserts that WRNN is not "local" to New York City as its programming is geared to the local  xneeds and interests of the distant Kingston area. Moreover, the needs of Time Warner's  xsubscribers for local news, public affairs and public service programming are being fully met by  xthe local broadcast stations and cable offerings carried on the New York City systems. Time"  ,N(N(ZZy"  xWarner also notes that it has not carried WRNN because of past copyright and signal quality concerns.  X- ` #x9.` ` With regard to the historical carriage factor, the operator asserts that WRNN has  x=never been carried on the systems because it has never believed that the station provides any  xlocallyoriented programming of interest to New York City cable subscribers. Time Warner also  Xv- xstates that it has never carried any television station licensed to the same area as WRNN. vMC yO- xԍ Time Warner submits that Cablevision Systems Corporation has also never carried WRNN on its systems serving the Bronx and eastern Brooklyn, the only areas of New York City not served by Time Warner's systems. For  xexample, the systems have never carried WTBY, a station licensed to Poughkeepsie, NY, which  xis to the south of Kingston. Referring to the third factor, Time Warner states that other stations  xiand cable offerings provide ample local news, sports, and public service programming throughout  X - xeach broadcast day to its New York City subscribers.  MC yO -  ԍ The systems carry the following local commercial stations: WCBS (CBS); WNBC (NBC); WABC (ABC);   WNYW (FOX); WWOR (general); WPIX (general); WXTV (Spanish lang.); WNJU (Spanish lang.); WHSE (Home   Shopping) and WLIG (General). The noncommercial stations currently carried are: WNYC; WNET; WLIW; WNJN; and WNYE.  Time Warner also mentions that it meets  xlocal community concerns through its carriage of at least nine public, educational, and  xgovernment access channels on its systems. The operator alleges that WRNN has achieved no  x[viewing in the households of New York City and therefore does not have a sufficient audience  xto be rated in the New York market. The operator then points out that the station is in fact listed  xin Nielsen Media Research's audience research survey for the AlbanySchenectadyTroy, NY  x<DMA. The operator also argues that the addition of WRNN, or any of the other newly copyright xfree television stations, would have an adverse impact upon its subscribers as it would have to  Xb-drop a cable programming service to accommodate carriage of the station's signal.bMC yO-ԍ According to Time Warner, its 550 MHz systems in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn are filled to capacity.  X4- ` nx 10.` ` Time Warner's principal argument, however, is that WRNN does not provide local  xservice to the relevant cable communities. The operator claims the station makes no effort to  X- xOserve New York City with programming of local interest to City residents.$MC yOO- xxԍ Time Warner notes that the lack of interest on the part of New York City viewers is evidenced by the fact  {O- xthat TV Guide does not include WRNN in its New York City television station programming guide. The operator  {O- xasserts that TV Guide recognizes that the programming of WRNN is not of sufficient local interest to be included with that of 20 other broadcast stations in the New York City edition. The local  xprogramming and service the station does provide is oriented more toward viewers living in the  X- xupstate New York counties of Ulster and Dutchess. MC yO $- xԍ Time Warner gives several examples of news stories broadcast by WRNN that illustrate the station's upstate New York focus. The operator also notes that WRNN is not  xjphysically proximate as Kingston, NY is about 80 miles away from New York City. In contrast,  xKthe station is just 51 miles from Albany, NY, the center of the separate AlbanySchenectadyTroy",N(N(ZZp"  xADI. Time Warner submits that WRNN's Grade B contour does not appear to cover most of the  xareas served by the New York City systems and the station fails to provide an adequate strength  xsignal at the headend of any of the systems. Nevertheless, the station appears to cover Albany, Schenectady, and Troy with its Grade B contour.  X- ` }x 11.` ` In opposition, WRNN first explains that it is a UHF independent television station  Xv- xserving a large portion of the greater New York ADI with a high quality overtheair signal.@vMC yO-  ԍ WRNN states that it is a qualified must carry signal signing ontheair in late 1985 . The station asserts that   it has tried to satisfy the operator's concerns about its signal quality by agreeing to deliver its signal via fiberoptics   to each Time Warner headend. WRNN also states that Time Warner filed its petition shortly after Congress enacted   a new Copyright Act provision making a station's ADI local for copyright as well as for must carry purposes. WRNN   Jnotes that the following cable operators in the New York ADI have agreed to carry the station's signal after Section   111 of the 1976 Copyright Act was amended: Comcast of Danbury, CT; Cablevision of Yorktown; Continental Cable   <of Ossining; United Cable of North Salem; and TKR Rockland. The station notes that these systems alone raise WRNN's reach of television households by 33%  x<WRNN asserts that Time Warner consistently has sought to avoid its legal obligation to carry its  xsignal, and thereby perpetuates the monopoly profits being earned by competing cable program  xservices in which Time Warner has an economic stake. The station argues that the Commission  xshould ignore Time Warner's attempt to split the ADI into separate and discrete areas of viewing  xpatterns because the operator itself recognizes that the greater New York ADI is an economically  x.integrated viewing/advertising community. For example, Time Warner is a major participant in  xWNYI, a tristate cable advertising interconnect where an advertiser can acquire time through a  xxsingle purchase on cable systems covering New York City, Long Island, New Jersey, Westchester  xCounty, Rockland County, and southern Connecticut. According to the station, Time Warner's  xparticipation in WNYI illustrates the fallacy of its claims that WRNN is not part of the greater  x\New York television market. WRNN then questions why New York City stations should be carried in Kingston and surrounding areas if WRNN has no right to be carried in New York City.  X4- ` #x 12.` ` With regard to past cable carriage, WRNN argues that the operator's argument is  xcircular. The past lack of carriage of WRNN by Time Warner and other cable systems in the  xADI has been a reflection of WRNN's newness and the unreasonable actions of the cable  xoperators themselves. According to WRNN, Congress intended the statute to eliminate such  x/instances of refusals to carry, not to perpetuate them. The station also mentions that Time  xiWarner has been arbitrary in its decisions as to which independent stations to carry systemwide,  x agreeing for example to carry WLIG, Riverhead, NY, a similarly situated station on systems  xwhich are as much as 83.5 miles away. As for the third statutory factor, WRNN argues that it  xis irrelevant that many other stations in the market provide similar programming because the fundamental purpose of must carry is to create a greater diversity of offerings.  X7- ` x 13.` ` To rebut Time Warner's lack of local programming claim, WRNN argues that its  x\programming, both at present and as proposed for the future, provides just the sort of local  x=service that Congress stated the Commission should consider as a critical factor in refusing to  xdelete cable communities from a particular market. The station asserts that the examples Time",N(N(ZZ"  xWarner gave regarding WRNN local programming efforts are not "exhaustive" and are no  x.reflection of the local service it provides for the entire ADI. Moreover, locally produced news  xkand informational programming comprises some 33% of WRNN's weekly program schedule.  xWRNN also states that it has added news bureaus in Westchester and Rockland Counties in  x[preparation for airing "WestchesterRockland News" the first areawide daily local newscast  xMin that area, beginning January 30, 1995. In keeping with this concept, WRNN plans to add  xynews bureaus in Danbury and Stamford, Connecticut; Bergen County, New Jersey, and in New  x.York City. WRNN also plans to adopt its current weekly programs such as "Business Forum"  xand "Safe Streets" to meet the local needs of other New York ADI communities and is presently  xznegotiating to carry several programs on its schedule with special interest to New York City  X - xresidents.  MC yO - xwԍ WRNN explains that it had entered into negotiations with Time Warner whereby the operator would carry the  xstation on all its systems throughout the ADI in exchange for WRNN carrying four programs from the operator's  xcable service New York 1 News. These discussions were broken off after the operator filed its petition with the Commission. The station asserts that WRNN's lack of Grade B contour coverage is irrelevant  xbecause WLIG, like WRNN, does not place a Grade B contour over the systems yet the operator  xdoes carry that station. Nonetheless, in a later pleading WRNN shows that its translator station  xyin Nyack, NY (Rockland County) acts to extend its signal into portions of New York City. Time  xWarner's geographic distance and poor quality signal arguments are also unavailing because  x\WRNN is committed to provide a good quality signal to all of the operator's headends via a  xmicrowave link. With regard to viewership, WRNN claims that a special Arbitron survey of the Hudson Valley indicates significant viewership of certain programs in that area.  XK- ` `x 14.` ` The station also asserts that Time Warner has made no claim that it fulfilled its  xstatutory requirement of carrying the signals of commercial television stations up to onethird of  x/the aggregate number of usable activated channels of its systems. The failure to fulfill this  xrequirement outweighs any argument Time Warner makes that its systems are filled to capacity,  xMand therefore, the operator must make room for WRNN. In addition, WRNN claims that the  xgrant of Time Warner's petition would serve only to limit competition to the numerous cable  xoriginated channels the operator owns either outright or in concert with others. Were WRNN to  xbe carried on Time Warner's systems, it would compete directly with the operator's news service  x."New York 1 News" for viewers and advertisers. WRNN asserts that Time Warner apparently  xdoes not welcome this competition for subscribers and advertising revenue and so it seeks to keep  xjthe station off its systems. WRNN also argues that the failure to afford it full must carry rights  xNin the greater New York ADI would severely hinder the station's ability to survive in the  xmarketplace, let alone undertake its planned news and information format. Finally, permitting  xmarketwide cable carriage will further the Commission's own longheld policy of fostering the growth of free, overtheair, UHF independent stations.  X- ` _x15..` ` In a brief filing, WLIG, an independent television station based in Riverhead, NY,  xattempts to correct unfounded assertions made by WRNN. WLIG first states that it is currently" ,N(N(ZZ"  X- xcarried on all the cable systems serving New York City. MC yOy-  Kԍ Carriage commenced on Time Warner's Queens and Brooklyn systems in 1987; on Cablevision's Brooklyn   and Bronx systems in June 1993; on Time Warner's Manhattan cable system in July 1993; on Time Warner's Paragon   Cable system (serving Northern Manhattan) in August 1993; and on Time Warner's Staten Island system in September 1994. WLIG then explains that it broadcasts  xL4 half hours of selfproduced local news each weekday from its studio and 2 half hours of self xproduced public affairs programming each weekend, covering stories of local interest to viewers  X- xjin New York City and throughout the New York ADI.MC yO -ԍ WLIG submits a detailed news log showing the range of New York City stories it has covered. In addition, WLIG's newscasts include  x-indepth daily coverage of New York City professional and collegiate sports teams and New York  xCity weather. Finally, WLIG asserts that its Grade B contour encompasses portions of the  xQueens communities served by Time Warner's Queens systems and it delivers a signal meeting FCC standards to all of the operator's systems.  X1- ` x16.` ` In its reply, Time Warner asserts that WRNN disregards clear statutory factors and  xdistorts relevant evidence. With regard to the historical carriage factor, the operator argues that  x[the 1992 Cable Act makes historic carriage a relevant factor in all market modification petitions,  xzwithout any exception. Time Warner also asserts that past carriage is important to consider  xbecause if carriage of the station's programming would have increased the value of the channel  x[lineup to subscribers through local interest programming, the systems would have previously  x[added it. With regard to carriage of WLIG, Time Warner states that, contrary to the assertions  x<of WRNN, it carried this station's signal on all of its systems prior to the Copyright Act's revision  Xy- xin October, 1994.1Xy@MC yOj- x,ԍ Time Warner clarifies that it receives WLIG's programming from W57BC, an LPTV repeater facility located  xxin Mineola, NY for all its facilities except Staten Island, which receives WLIG from W44AW, and LPTV station in Morristown, NJ.1 The operator also reiterates that WRNN does not provide local service to  xthe systems' cable communities. The programming the station cites as support for the proposition  xthat it provides local service appears to be produced and aired only for Kingston area residents.  x Similarly, WRNN fails to detail current programs providing specific coverage of issues and  xevents which are local to New York City rather than Hudson Valley. Time Warner also points  xout that the focus of the local service factor is whether a station currently provides service, not  xwhether it may do so in the future. As for WRNN's arguments regarding Grade B contour  xcoverage, the operator asserts that the Commission has recognized this factor as a pertinent  xconsideration with respect to the second statutory factor especially in a case like this one where  xthe station's Grade B contour is lacking over most of New York City but does cover communities  xin the adjacent Albany ADI. With regard to viewership, Time Warner reiterates that Neilsen's  xratings books for the entire New York City DMA do not even include WRNN. Moreover, the  x0station's claim that a special Arbitron survey of the Hudson Valley indicated significant  xviewership of certain programs in that area clearly demonstrate that WRNN is not of equal interest throughout the large New York ADI. " ` ,N(N(ZZz"Ԍ X- ` x17.` ` Time Warner asserts that there is no statutory authority for the station's claim that  xa cable operator has to demonstrate a special "need" to modify its market apart from the specific  xanalysis mandated by Section 614(h). Time Warner also criticizes WRNN's claim that grant of  xthe petition would limit competition calling such an argument unsupported by the record and  X- x[irrelevant to the market modification analysis.MC yO- xԍ With regard to WRNN's characterization of its dialogue with the operator concerning carriage of New York  x1 News programming, Time Warner asserts that it never proposed or agreed to carry the station on its systems as  xpart of the sale of programming. The discussions were initiated by WRNN, which sough to acquire the rights to  xbroadcast certain New York 1 News shows. The President of the Time Warner New York City Cable Group broke  xoff negotiations, and expressly informed WRNN of its intention to file a market modification petition, before the operator filed that petition. Finally, the operator asserts that the statutory  xmarket modification procedures do not include an exception for independent UHF stations which fail to provide local service.  XH- ` x18.` ` Time Warner filed a response to an ex parte submission from WRNN which  xillustrated the predicted contour of the station's LPTV facility in Nyack, NY. Time Warner  x.argues that WRNN is attempting to bootstrap the coverage of its LPTV facility onto its parent station's Grade B coverage for purposes of demonstrating a wider local service area.  xThe operator asserts that the use of the LPTV station does not lessen the relevance of the parent's  xfailure to place a Grade B contour over the subject cable communities. Time Warner states that  xthe presence of an LPTV station may be relevant for curing a station's signal quality problems  xOin the context of a must carry proceeding but it is irrelevant in the context of a market  X- xmodification proceeding.@MC yO- xԍ Time Warner notes that it has taken no measurements at it headends of the signal available from the LPTV facility, and thus expresses no opinion as to the adequacy of such signal. Finally, Time Warner argues that because WRNN's Grade B contour  xdoes not cover the cable communities at issue, those same communities do not lie within the natural service area of the station.  X6- ` x19.` ` WRNN filed a reply to Time Warner's response. In it, the station questioned the  X- xmotive and logic of the operator's need to respond to an ex parte submission which was devoid  x[of any argument. WRNN also asserts that its submission was not an attempt to bootstrap any  xargument and that all it did was provide factual information pursuant to the Commission's  xKrequest. With regard to the operator's local service argument, WRNN states that its lack of Grade  xB contour coverage over some of Time Warner's cable communities is not in any way dispositive  xof the "extensive local service" WRNN provides these communities. WRNN states that its use  xof fiber optic delivery and the presence of its translator, which "guarantee" a good quality signal  X-throughout the ADI, undermines the operator's reliance on Grade B contours.)XMC yO#- xԍ WRNN updates the record pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.65, 76.7 note (1994), to insure the continuing accuracy  xZand completeness of information in the record in this proceeding. On May 14, 1996 WRNN made an additional  xfiling purporting to update the Commission on certain "significant factual and legal changes since January 1995."  x-This filing was not timely and petitioner has not had an opportunity to respond to it. It will accordingly not be  xconsidered. As to its timeliness, we note that it is not in the main an update as to recent events. To the contrary,"&,N(N('"  xit includes a list of awards received by WTZA (WRNN's former call letters) from 1986 through 1995. It contains  x,copies of newspaper and magazine articles that are between a month and seven months old. Finally, it also includes legal arguments based on case precedent from 1995. )" ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- ęANALYSIS AND DECISION ă  X- ` x20.` ` We will grant Time Warner's request.|MC yOk- xԍ We note that the constitutionality of the 1992 Cable Act's must carry provisions and the Commission's  ximplementing rules were initially upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The U.S. Supreme  x;Court subsequently reviewed the lower court's decision and then vacated and remanded the case to the District Court  {O - xJfor further factfinding. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, 819  {O - xF.Supp. 32 (D.D.C. 1993), vacated and remanded, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994), on remand, 910 F.Supp. 734 (D.D.C.  xz1995). However, during the course of this ongoing litigation, no court has stayed the enforcement of the Commission's rules, and therefore Time Warner's challenge to the constitutionality of the rules is inappropriate here. Based on geography and other relevant  xinformation, we believe that the New York City cable communities are sufficiently removed from  xWRNN that they ought not be deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage  X- xjpurposes.G, MC yOj-ԍ H.R. Rep. 102628, at 9798. G The evidence before us distinguishes these communities from the rest of the New  xYork television market and persuades us that the action requested would better effectuate the purposes of Section 614 of the Communications Act.  X1- ` x21.` ` New York is the nation's largest television market with approximately 6.7 million  xjtelevision households. Approximately 68% of the households in the market subscribe to cable  X - xkservice.q MC {Op-ԍ See Nielsen February 1996 Cable Television Penetration Estimates.q Geographically, the market encompasses some 29 counties in four states,@ N MC yO- xԍ The following counties are located in the New York ADI: (1) Pike County, PA; (2) Fairfield County, CT; (3)  xOcean County, NJ; (4) Monmouth County, NJ; (5) Middlesex County, NJ; (6) Somerset County, NJ; (7) Union  xxCounty, NJ; (8) Hudson County, NJ; (9) Essex County, NJ; (10) Hunterdon County, NJ; (11) Warren County, NJ  xK(12) Sussex County, NJ; (13) Morris County, NJ; (14) Passaic County, NJ; (15) Bergen County, NJ; (16) Suffolk  x<County, NY; (17) Nassau County, NY; (18) Westchester County, NY; (19) Rockland County, NY; (20) Putnam  xCounty, NY; (21) Dutchess County, NY; (22) Orange County, NY; (23) Ulster County, NY; (24) Sullivan County,  xNY; (25) Queens County, NY; (26) Kings County, NY; (27) Richmond County, NY; (28) New York County, NY; and (29) The Bronx, NY. and is  x[roughly 170 miles long and 150 miles wide, stretching north into Ulster County and the Catskill  xMountains then down the shores of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, New Jersey to the south;  xKPike County, Pennsylvania is at the westernmost edge of the market which then extends eastward  X - x=to include Fairfield County, CT and all of Long Island, NY.  VMC yO#-  ԍ The AlbanySchenectadyTroy ADI abuts the New York ADI to the north; the HartfordNew Haven ADI abuts   the New York ADI to the east; the Philadelphia ADI abuts the New York ADI to the southwest; the Wilkes Barre  Scranton ADI abuts the New York ADI to the west; and the Binghamton ADI abuts the New York ADI to the northwest. The core of the ADI is New York  xCity, the largest city in the United States and the community of license for several local" >,N(N(ZZ"  xcommercial television stations. Time Warner's New York City cable systems serve over 1 million  x.subscribers making that system the largest in the country. WRNN, which signed ontheair in  x1985 as WTZA, broadcasts news, information, and entertainment programming on channel 62  x=from a transmitter located on Overlook Mountain in Woodstock, NY with a translator based in  xNyack, NY. The station's city of license is Kingston, NY (Ulster County) with its studios located  X-in Kingston and New Windsor, NY.MC yO-ԍ Woodstock is 10 miles northwest of Kingston and New Windsor is 33 miles south of Kingston.  X_- ` 2x22.` ` As an initial matter, we note that, according to the legislative history of the 1992  xCable Act, the use of ADI market areas is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried  X1- xin the areas which they service and which form their economic market.\1XMC yO: -ԍ H.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).\ Changes may be sought  xand granted by the Commission "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage  X - xrequirements.?  MC yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 534(h).? The ADI market change process incorporated into the Communications Act,  xhowever, is not intended to be a process whereby cable operators may seek relief from the  xmandatory signal carriage obligations apart from the question of whether a change in the market  x>area involved is warranted. When viewed against this backdrop, and considering all of the  xMrelevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that the operator's deletion petition  x appears to be a legitimate request to redraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous with  xmarket realities. Time Warner's actions do not clearly reflect an intention to skirt its signal  xcarriage responsibilities under the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's rules nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory conduct against the station.  X- ` x23.` ` We note as a preliminary matter that Time Warner and the other cable operators  xzserving communities in the New York ADI recognize that this television market is unusually  xlarge in terms of geography and population, and for this reason created the NYI interconnect so  xthat local advertisers can reach as many subscribers as practically possible through the cable  xtelevision medium. Based on the record and other indicia, we believe that the interconnect was  xdesigned to achieve efficiencies in selling advertising time and as a tool in maximizing  xadvertising revenues and does not necessarily reflect a collective viewpoint on the part of these  xoperators that the New York ADI is in fact one uniform and homogenous television marketplace.  xThe interconnect is divided into four subzones for advertising purchasing purposes: (1) Northern  x2and Central New Jersey; (2) New York City; (3) Long Island; and (4) Upstate New  x<York/Fairfield County, CT (including, among others, Rockland and Westchester Counties). Time  x-Warner and the other cable operators appear to have recognized that different demographics and  xconsumer patterns exist within the subzones and planned their marketing strategy accordingly.  xSince the evidence suggests that the interconnect was not intended to mirror a tightly knit ADI,  x>we do not see its existence as supportive of the broadcasters' contention that only a single indivisible market is involved. "! x ,N(N(ZZ "Ԍ X- ` x24. ` ` Turning to the statutory factors, we note that WRNN has no history of cable  x.carriage on either Time Warner's systems or other cable systems serving the five Boroughs of  xLNew York despite being ontheair for 11 years. The evidence also suggests that WRNN does  xynot provide local service to the communities in question. WRNN does not place either a Grade  X- xA or Grade B contour over the cable communities.!MC yO- x=ԍ We have held that the local service requirement is satisfied if the station's Grade B contour covers the  {O-community. See 8 FCC Rcd at 2981. While we recognize that WRNN's  x<translator's service may clip Northern Manhattan, we agree with Time Warner that such coverage  xdoes not lessen the relevance of the parent's failure to place a Grade B contour over the subject  xcable communities as Grade B coverage is indicative of the station's natural market. Commercial  xtranslators are secondary service stations that are explicitly not entitled to carriage in their own  xxright and the service here involved is not otherwise sufficient to persuade us that WRNN's market  xincludes the New York City cable communities. Thus, in this instance, we decline to split the  xCity into discrete segments for signal carriage purposes. We also do not believe that WRNN  X - x"currently provides local programming service to New York City. "$ "MC yO- xԍ A recent trade press article reflects this broader understanding in the marketplace. In this article, describing  xWRNN's new format, one of the station's employees stated that "For now, [WRNN's] plan is to leave coverage of  {OO- xNew York City to the major news units there." See "WTZA changes call letters, adopts regional news format,"  {O-Electronic Media, October 23, 1995 pp. 6, 43.  Finally, WRNN is  xgeographically distant from the cable communities with Woodstock, NY, where the station's  X - xtransmitter site is located, an average of 94 miles away.# MC yO}- xZԍ WRNN is 87 miles away from Manhattan, 93 miles away from Queens, 96 miles away from Brooklyn, and 100 miles away from Staten Island. Here then, the distance and lack of service attenuates any local ties the station could have with the cable communities.  Xy- ` x25.` ` We also believe that Time Warner's carriage of other local television stations  xMprovides support for the action requested in this particular case. Where a cable operator is  xseeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights in certain communities within its ADI, and  x[it is clear that the station is not providing local service to those communities, the issue of local  xcoverage by other stations becomes a factor which we will give greater weight than in cases  xwhere a party is seeking to add communities. In this particular instance, there are several  xtelevision stations licensed to New York City and adjacent communities which have a closer  xeconomic nexus, cast a City Grade signal over the cable communities, and provide more focused  xlocal programming than WRNN. These market facts, coupled with the distance between the cable communities and WRNN, supports Time Warner's argument under the third factor.  X|- ` x26.` ` Time Warner also demonstrates that WRNN has no audience in the counties in  Xe- xwhich the cable systems are located. In this regard, we note that Nielsen Media Research has  xassigned the station to the AlbanySchenectadyTroy DMA for ratings purposes in its latest  xviewership study. This evidence demonstrates, at least from Nielsen's standpoint, that WRNN,  xjbecause of its location and Grade B contour, more aptly serves Albany and its environs, rather"  f #,N(N(ZZz"  X- xthan New York City.O$ZMC {Oy- xKԍ WRNN's Grade B contour covers Albany and Troy. According to Nielsen's 1995 County/Coverage Study,  xWRNN has a 2 share and 36 cume in Greene County and a 2 share and 23 cume in Columbia County, both of which are located in the AlbanySchenectadyTroy DMA.O This fact coupled with the station's failure to satisfy any of the other statutory criteria further supports our decision to grant Time Warner's request. x  X-   ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X- ` x27.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act  xof 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534, and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59,  xMthat the "Petition for Special Relief" (CSR4416A) filed November 14, 1994 by Time Warner  XH-New York City Cable Group IS GRANTED .  X - `  x28.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  William H. Johnson  Xb-x` `  Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau