WPC]a 2MBVRKZ3|X7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP4Si (Additional); Rm. 907_1; LPT2HPLA4SAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\! EXP2> K Z3|X"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN.<</<0=1B>_Equation Caption_Equation Caption.11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference/44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference04#XP\  P6QXP#head1 #1'd#2p}wC@ #2)A2}>3p?4?5@a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf2$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf3/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf4:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf5E` ` `  2AD6[A7B8B9wCa5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf6P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf7[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf8f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf9q 2MKsDKFK IKTK"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/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""miles away from its communities, WLNY is more than 90 miles away, and WRNN at least 84  xMmiles distant. In addition, CTEC states that the cities of license of the three stations are all  xlocated in the northern portion of the New York ADI while the system communities are in the  xisoutheastern portion; None of the stations' Grade B contours encompass any of the communities  xiand the stations cannot be received offtheair. The signal strength of the three stations does not"!z ,-(-(ZZ "  xkreach the Commission's threshold for UHF stations. Although WHAITV and WRNN have  xproposed to deliver their signals via fiber optic cable, CTEC states that the Commission has  xLrecognized that the use of "fiber optics technology to improve [a station's] signal quality does  x!not convert [the station] into a local station for the purposes of the market modification  X- xanalysis."y } {O-ԍSee Comcast Cablevision of Monmouth County, 11 FCC Rcd 6440, 6449 (1996). y There is no history of carriage of any of the stations on CTEC's systems. None of  xthe stations provide programming which addresses the needs of CTEC's subscribers. CTEC  xargues, for instance, that the majority of WHAITV's programming is home shopping and that  x.the few hours of "local" programming it provides is tailored to the interests of the residents of  x^Bridgeport, Connecticut. The Bureau concluded in a previous decision that WLNY's  X1- xprogramming was targeted toward New York and not New Jersey viewers.1Z} {O< -ԍSee Continental Cablevison of Western New England, Inc.,11 FCC Rcd 6488, 6510 (1996). CTEC states  x<coverage of local news and programming is more than adequately covered by must carry stations  X - xand local origination channels now carried on its systems. } yO- xԍCTEC states that the following stations are carried on its various systems: WWORTV (Ind.), Secaucus, NJ,  xhalf of whose news coverage is devoted to New Jersey stories; the New Jersey Network, a channel devoted  xexclusively to coverage of New Jersey public affairs, news and sports; WNJUTV (Ind.), Linden, NJ; WHSE (Ind.),  x,Newark, NJ; WNET (PBS), Newark, NJ; WXTV (Ind.), Paterson, NJ; WNJNTV (PBS), Montclair, NJ; WMBCTV  x(Ind.), Newton, NJ; WCBSTV (CBS), WNBCTV (NBC), WNYW (Ind.), WABCTV (ABC), WPIX (Ind.) and WNET (PBS), all New York, NY.  There is no appreciable viewership  xfor any of the stations in the northern New Jersey counties where CTEC's systems are located.  xZNone of the stations are listed in local papers for the northern New Jersey area, nor are they listed  X - x-in the New Jersey edition of TV Guide. Indeed, CTEC points out that A.C. Nielsen had assigned  xWRNN to the AlbanySchenectadyTroy DMA, further evidence that the station has little in  x.common with residents in the system communities. Only one of nine cable systems near to C X{- xTEC carries any of the stations. {d } yO- xKԍSammons Communications (Dover, NJ) carries WLNY and WRNN. The remaining nearby systems that do  xnot carry these signals are: TKR (Piscataway); Panther Valley Service (Allamuchy Twp.); Service Electric (southern  xportions of Hunterdon County); Comcast (East Windsor, Eatontown, North Plainfield and Trenton); and Storer Cable (Port Murray). Moreover, CTEC indicates that several of these same systems  Xd- xKhave successfully petitioned the Commission for exclusion of the same channels from their ADI.dL } {Oa- xԍSee, Cablevision Systems Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 6453 (1996); Continental Cablevision of Western New England,  {O+ -Inc., supra; Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 6541, 6555 (1996).  xjFinally, CTEC argues that requiring it to carry these stations would not serve Congress' intent in establishing localism as the linchpin of the must carry provisions.  X-  X- ` ax10. ` ` In its opposition, WLNY states that in the instant case, CTEC has failed to  xsubstantiate its showing as to why WLNY should be eliminated from carriage on its systems.  xWLNY argues that CTEC is asking the Bureau to adopt a mileage/signal contourbased must  x<carry test in favor of the ADIbased test adopted by Congress. WLNY maintains that the Bureau",-(-(ZZ"  xhas no authority to do this. WLNY points out that it is the only remaining commercial  x-independent station in the New York ADI which broadcasts a general entertainment/news/sports  X- xformat.} yOK- xԍWLNY states that all of the other independent stations in the New York ADI are either affiliated with networks such as FOX, UPN or Warner Brothers, or broadcast foreignlanguage or homeshopping type formats. WLNY states that, despite CTEC's allegations, it is carried on five cable systems in  X- xNew Jersey, including ones located in Morris and Somerset Counties,6X } yO- xԍOther counties include Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth and Union. WLNY states that it was recently  xyadded to another system in Passaic County, New Jersey serving 24,000 subscribers which is 70 miles from the station's city of license.6 which serve over 700,000  xhomes. WLNY maintains that three systems carry its signal pursuant to "longterm carriage  X- x<agreements" that would be unaffected even if the must carry regulations didn't exist.@} yO~ - xԍThose systems are Suburban Cablevision and TCINorthern New Jersey (Morris County) and TKRPiscataway (Morris and Somerset Counties). Moreover,  Xv- x[WLNY indicates that it is listed in five newspapers with significant circulation in New Jersey.iv} {O- xԍThose papers are: The Bergen Record, the Parsippany Daily Record (Morris County), and the four daily New  {O-York City papers New York Times, Newsday, New York Post, and Daily News.i  x?While CTEC claims that it already receives more than adequate local programming from  xpresentlycarried stations, WLNY argues that neither the Bureau nor petitioner can discount the  X1- xllocal programming which it provides.1 } yO- xԍWLNY states that it airs one hour of selfproduced local news every weekday which covers the whole New  xYork ADI, including coverage of New Jersey news, weather and sports, and 4 half hours of selfproduced public  xaffairs programming each weekend which features interviews and panel discussions covering important issues in the  xNew York ADI. WLNY adds that its Wayne, New Jersey news bureau regularly provides New Jersey coverage for  xdaily newscasts and weekly public affairs programs such as "New Jersey Today." Indeed, it points out that in April 95 it aired more New Jersey stories than New York City's NBC station. Indeed, WLNY states that it provides more local  x-programming than a station, which in a previous modification decision, the Bureau found to have  x"sufficiently demonstrated that its current and planned programming is in fact designed to serve  X - xthe needs and interests of the communities in question." l} {O - xxԍSee Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 962 (1995) in which the Commission denied Time Warner's request to exclude Station WYED from its ADI. WLNY argues that it appears CTEC  xis merely trying to minimize the quality and quantity of its local programming by tying the  xconcept of local service to mileage and Grade B contour. WLNY points out that the Bureau has  X - xrepeatedly held that Grade B contours relative to ADI markets have reduced relevance. } {O"- xԍSee The Chronicle Publishing Company d/b/a Ventura County Cablevision, DA 951829 (released August 23,  x1995) at paragraph 2425, n. 27 where it is stated that "[T]he replacement of Grade B contours with ADIs as a must xcarry standard in Section 614 indicates that Grade B contours are not to be used as any absolute measure of the scope  {Ox$- xof a station's market." Also, see Amendment of Section 76.51 (Lakeland, Florida), 10 FCC Rcd 5580, 5581 n. 11  x(1995) where the Bureau recognized that cable carriage of a station beyond its Grade B contour has reduced relevance where carriage rights are based on market areas rather than Grade B contours. WLNY  xasserts that the 1992 Cable Act was intended to ensure that cable subscribers have access to all"B,-(-(ZZ"  xthe local programming available within their home markets. WLNY also points out that the ADI  xmarket concept is based on economic considerations rather than the signalbased must carry  xstandards set forth under previous Commission regulations. Therefore, the fact that its Grade B  x>contour does not encompass any of CTEC's cable communities is immaterial as to whether  xWLNY is indeed part of the New York ADI. WLNY argues that hundreds of thousands of  xpeople commute daily between New Jersey, New York and Long Island, belying the "natural  xLboundary" theory with regard to the New York ADI. Finally, WLNY maintains that neither the  xavailability of other stations which provide local programming nor the lack of viewership should act as a bar to its station's must carriage rights on CTEC's systems. x  X - ` x11. ` ` WRNN argues in opposition that CTEC's petition should be denied so that the  xapproximately 50,000 viewers in CTEC's cable communities not be denied the opportunity to  x=receive WRNN's unique programming. It maintains that CTEC relies on inaccurate claims and  xflawed analyses. For instance, WRNN indicates that it is located in the New York DMA, and  xnot the Albany DMA as claimed by CTEC. WRNN states further that it provides substantial  X - xprogramming } yO - x,ԍWRNN states that it broadcasts 49 1/3 hours per week of original, locally produced news, public affairs, sports, children's, informational, weather, traffic information and other locallydirected programming.  which specifically addresses the cable viewers in the subject communities;  xprogramming which is not duplicated by any other station which CTEC carries. WRNN points  xout that, as an example of its strong commitment to providing programming of import to New  xJersey viewers, it has a fullyfunctioning news bureau located in Piscataway, New Jersey which  XK- xproduces at least seven to eight substantial news stories per day.K } yO- xxԍWRNN states that its news bureau has a full news staff of anchors, reporters, producers, and associated crew, along with a "sportsshooter" who films New Jersey sporting events. In addition, it recently debuted  xa weekly halfhour newscast airing at 8:00 p.m. daily which concentrates exclusively on New  xJersey news stories. WRNN maintains that the other stations which CTEC relies on for news  X- xdo not cover the local and regional issues important to New Jersey with this kind of attention.Yx} yO/- xԍWRNN indicates that, through an agreement with Ramapo College (Bergen County), it regularly airs town  xmeetings which feature open forum discussions between New Jersey government officials, reporters, regional business  xKleaders, viewers and a live audience concerning major issues facing New Jersey. Topics have included New Jersey  xcorporate downsizing, plans regarding a comprehensive transportation infrastructure, New Jersey educational concerns and New Jersey election night coverage. Y  xFurther, WRNN argues that its lack of Grade B coverage and an overtheair signal do not affect  x-its carriage rights as the Commission has found that "Grade B contours are not to be used as any  X- xLabsolute measure of the scope of a station's market."v( } {O"-ԍSee The Chronicle Publishing Co., 10 FCC Rcd 9474, 9483 (1995) at n. 27.v In any event, WRNN points out that it  xcan provide a good quality signal to CTEC's headends via fiber optics, which is an approved  xKmethod of signal delivery. Indeed, WRNN states that, despite CTEC's claims regarding distance,  xits signal is carried on eight nearby New Jersey cable systems serving approximately 900,000  xsubscribers, some of whose headends are as much as 133 miles from Kingston, WRNN's city of  xllicense. Finally, WRNN argues that a station's lack of historical carriage should have no"N ,-(-(ZZ"  xprobative value prior to the passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 since many  x/stations, such as WRNN, were financially unable to indemnify cable systems for copyright liability before 1994 and thus could not obtain carriage on systems in their home ADI.  X- ` x12. ` ` In its opposition, WHAITV states deleting its station from CTEC's systems  xzwould subvert the purposes of the must carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer  Xv- xZProtection and Competition Act of 1992Sv} yO-ԍPub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).S which were enacted to ensure that smaller, independent  xstations, such as WHAITV, obtain cable carriage throughout their ADI. WHAITV argues that  x-CTEC has not made a sufficient showing that deletion would "better effectuate" the purposes of  xthe Act. WHAITV states that it has demonstrated a significant commitment to providing  x-programming addressing the needs and interests of CTEC's subscribers. It points out that it has  xxa unique programming format which combines programlength presentations by local and national  X - xbusinesses and community organizations with religious and local public affairs programming.  X} yO- xԍAs an example, WHAITV points to its public affairs program "Jersey Cares" which profiles nonprofit public  xinterest oriented organizations. In addition, WHAITV states that it each weekday it presents 4 hours of children's  xprogramming, 5 hours of locally originated public affairs programming, 9 hours of nonentertainment religious programming and 2 hours of Japanese language news and entertainment programming  x.WHAITV maintains further that CTEC's reliance on arguments involving WHAITV's lack of  xMhistorical carriage, Grade B coverage and ratings, and service from other stations have little  x=probative value. It points out that the Bureau has found that "the absence of historic carriage  X- x=cannot by itself be used to justify a refusal of carriage,"`@} {O-ԍSee Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 936, 938 (1995).` Congress specifically rejected Grade  xjB coverage as dispositive of must carry rights, the Commission has determined that carriage of  Xb- x>other local stations provides no basis for deletion of communities from a market,t b} {O-ԍSee Kansas City Cable Partners, 10 FCC Rcd 3805, 3809 (1995) at n. 14.t and that  xspecialty stations, such as WHAITV, "are capable of offer[ing] desirable diversity of  X4-programming . . . yet typically attract limited audiences."r!4d } {OI-ԍSee Nationwide Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 13050, 13053 (1995).r  X-  X- ` x13. ` ` CTEC filed a separate reply to each station's opposition. CTEC states that the  x<majority of WHAITV's opposition is an opinion piece on what the must carry regulations should  x-look like. However, CTEC points out that the Bureau has already evaluated and rejected WHAI X- xTV's statutory interpretations as "too restrictive and without a sufficient textual basis."" } {Oh#- x-ԍSee TKR Cable Company, DA 961890 (1996); and Time Warner New York City Cable Group, 11 FCC Rcd 6529 (1996). In  xMaddition, although WHAITV attempts to minimize the importance of Grade B contours, the  xMCommission has indicated that Grade B service and geographic distance will be the primary"P ",-(-(ZZo"  X- x<elements used to determine whether a station provides "local" service.q#} {Oy-ԍSee Signal Carriage Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2965 , 2977 (1993).q While WHAITV makes  xmuch of its "local" programming, CTEC argues that it fails to demonstrate that its programming  xis local to the instant communities. CTEC points out that the programming cited by WHAITV  xis, in the main, irrelevant to the interests of its systems' subscribers. Moreover, it continues,  xWHAITV presents no evidence on whether the station's commercial advertising or religious  xprogramming is tailored to meet the specific needs or interests of the communities' residents.  xFinally, CTEC argues that despite WHAITV's assertions, in cases where stations are excluded  xfrom an ADI market, the issue of service by other stations within the market is given "greater  XH-weight."w$HZ} {OS -ԍSee Comcast Cablevision of Monmouth County, 11 FCC Rcd 4226, 4233 (1996).w  X - ` x14. ` ` CTEC states that WRNN tries to minimize the significance of its failure to  xprovide a Grade B signal by characterizing its lack as a signal quality issue rather than a local  X - xservice issue. %  } yO- xԍCTEC states that while WRNN is correct in that the Bureau may have incorrectly concluded from the 1995  xNielsen data in another proceeding that WRNN had been reassigned to the Albany DMA, the Bureau's finding that  xZthe same Nielsen data indicates that WRNN has stronger shares in the Albany DMA than the New York DMA is undisputed by WRNN.  However, CTEC argues that a Grade B service contour generally defines the  x=parameters of a station's local service and the failure of a station to deliver a viewable signal is  xnot merely a signal quality issue that can be resolved with the use of fiber optics. CTEC  xmaintains that WRNN's claim that it targets areas for local coverage beyond where its signal can  x-be received offtheair is both unsupported and insupportable. CTEC states that the Bureau has  xalready noted that "the fact that a station has invested in fiber optics technology to improve its  xsignal quality does not convert WRNN into a `local' station for purposes of the market  XK- xmodification analysis."z&K} {O-ԍSee,Comcast Cablevision of Monmouth County, 11 FCC Rcd 6449 at paragraph 23.z CTEC points out that the news stories listed by WRNN do not reflect  xlocal service aimed at its communities; indeed, many address broader New Jersey issues. CTEC  xKstates that in a previous case, the Commission analyzed essentially the same facts and found that  xWRNN's programming was insufficient to overcome its lack of Grade B coverage and geographic  X- xdistance.+'f } yO -ԍId.+ Finally, while WRNN makes much of its carriage on neighboring cable systems, it  xoverlooks the fact that some system communities where WRNN has already been deleted are closer to Kingston, the station's city of license, than the CTEC communities.  X- ` Qx15. ` ` CTEC argues that its communities are simply too far away from WLNY for the  X|- xstation to provide local service.(| } yO#&- xԍCTEC states that its communities are in western New Jersey while WLNY is located at the eastern end of Long Island. Moreover, it states that the Bureau has firmly established that"| N (,-(-(ZZ2"  xgeographic distance is a major factor in determining whether a station actually and consistently  xKserves a community's local interests. For instance, CTEC points out that the Bureau has already  X- xdeleted WLNY on systems that are even closer than CTEC's communities.$)} {OK- x;ԍSee Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 6541, 6555 (1996) at paragraph  {O-28 and Continental Cablevision of Western New England, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 6488, 6510 (1996) at paragraph 45.$ Like WRNN, C xTEC argues that WLNY should be aware of the importance the Bureau places on the Grade B  x-service contour, a factor which has been a key element in the Bureau's decisions to delete WLNY  X- x@from carriage on other New York ADI communities.*$} {Ob - xԍSee Service Electric Cable TV of New Jersey, Inc., DA 962138 (released December 20, 1996) at paragraph 26. CTEC maintains that WLNY's  x programming also does not target its systems' communities. Indeed, CTEC states that the  xBureau has already determined that the "majority of programming [of WLNY] is of no particular  XH- xzinterest to New Jersey viewers."+H~} {Ow- xԍSee Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 6541, 6542, 6555 (1996) at note 3. In addition, CTEC argues that WLNY is misplaced in its  xassumption that service by other stations cannot affect whether its station should be deleted.  x/Finally, WRNN's carriage on other cable systems "is not highly probative of establishing a  X - xjhistory of carriage."b, } {O-ԍSee Comcast Cablevision of Monmouth County, at 6435.b Like WRNN, CTEC points out that WLNY has also been excluded from cable communities closer than the communities herein.  X -V DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  X- ` x16.` ` Based on our analysis of the evidence relating to the four statutory and other  xrelevant factors, CTEC's petition will be granted. New York is the nation's most populous  Xb- xtelevision market. Geographically, the market encompasses some 29 counties in four states.-@bj } yO}- xԍThe 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.  x>It is roughly 170 miles long and 150 miles wide, stretching north into Ulster County and the  x-Catskill Mountains and down to the New Jersey coastal counties of Monmouth and Ocean in the  xsouth; Pike County, Pennsylvania is at the westernmost edge of the market which then extends" r-,-(-(ZZ "  X- x.eastward to include Fairfield County, CT and all of Long Island, NY.. } yOy- xwԍThe AlbanySchenectadyTroy ADI abuts the New York ADI to the north; the HartfordNew Haven ADI abuts  xthe New York ADI to the east; the Philadelphia ADI abuts the New York ADI to the southwest; the Wilkes Barre xScranton ADI abuts the New York ADI to the west; and the Binghamton ADI abuts the New York ADI to the northwest. The cable communities  xinvolved are in the New Jersey counties of Somerset, Hunterdon, Morris, and Mercer which are  xysome 25 to 50 miles west and southwest of New York City. WLNY, licensed to Riverhead, New  x=York, first signed ontheair in 1985 and broadcasts on channel 55 from a transmitter located in  x>Ridge, New York. The cable communities are 90 or more miles from the station. WHAITV,  xlicensed to Bridgeport, Connecticut, first signed ontheair in 1987, went dark in 1991, and  xresumed service in late 1993. The station broadcasts on channel 43 from a transmitter located  X_- xin Seymour, Connecticut./_} yO - xԍ Seymour is 17 miles northeast of Bridgeport and is actually located in New Haven County, which is in the HartfordNew Haven ADI. It is 68 to 95 miles from the cable communities. WRNN, licensed  xto Kingston, New York, signed ontheair in 1985 as WTZA, and broadcasts on channel 62 from  X1- xa transmitter located on Overlook Mountain in Woodstock, New York.T01} yO-ԍWoodstock is 10 miles northwest of Kingston.T It is between 83 and 100 miles from the cable communities.  X - xA. Historic Signal Carriage  X -  X - ` 2x17. ` ` Statutory factor one is "whether the station, or other stations located in the same  xarea, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community."  xNone of the stations at issue in this proceeding has any history of carriage in the cable  Xy- xcommunities in question. Nor are other stations carried from the same general areas (Riverhead,  xBridgeport, or Kingston) to which these stations are licensed. None of the stations is of recent origin.  X- ` x18. ` ` Carriage on nearby cable systems is not a factor specified in the statute, but it does  xseem likely, depending on the specific circumstances involved, that carriage on nearby systems  X- xcould serve as evidence to define the logical scope of a station's market.p1} {O8-ԍFouce Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 668, 671 (CSB, 1995)p Such carriage could  xserve to demonstrate the belief of both the stations and systems involved that there is a market  xnexus between the broadcast station and the communities where the station is carried and thus  xLprovide evidence as to the scope of a station's market. There is no evidence that WHAITV is  x-carried on cable systems in other communities near the communities here is question. WLNY and  xWRNN have been carried on a number of cable systems in northern New Jersey. Most of these  xsystems, however, tend to be closer to WLIG or WRNN than are the communities CTEC serves  XN-and a number of nearby systems do not carry the signals. "7 * 1,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-x B. Station Coverage of Communities  X-  X- ` _x19. ` ` Statutory factor two is "whether the television station provides coverage or other  xlocal service to such community." This factor incorporates both technical service and  xprogramming service. With respect to technical service coverage, the Commission has stated in  X- xits Broadcast Signal Carriage Report and Order that "to show that the station provides coverage  xyor other local service to the cable communities, parties may demonstrate that the station places  xat least a Grade B coverage contour over the cable community or is located close to the  XJ- xcommunity in terms of mileage."?2J} yO -ԍ8 FCC Rcd at 29762977.? None of the stations involved here provide Grade B or other  xservice that can be received overtheair in the cable communities or are close in terms of  xmileage. Here each of the communities is well outside of the Grade B contours of the stations  xLinvolved. The absence of overtheair service is also reflected in the stations' lack of audience  x>in the communities, the distances from the transmission facilities involved, and in technical  xjmeasurements submitted by CTEC. Because of the absence of overtheair local service, all of the stations appear to be intending to deliver their signals via fiber optic cable. x  X- ` nx20. ` ` With respect to programming service, CTEC alleges that there is no programming  xfrom the stations that is specifically targeted to the cable communities involved. There is  x[evidence, however, that each of the stations broadcast some material directed toward northern  xNew Jersey. WLNY has, among others, a weekly public affairs program entitled "New Jersey  xToday" and has a news bureau in Wayne, New Jersey (Passaic County). WRNN has a daily news  xprogram entitled "New Jersey News Live" and has a news bureau in Piscataway, New Jersey  x(Middlesex County). WHAI broadcasts a public affairs program on weekday afternoons entitled "Jersey Cares" highlighting issues and charitable organization operating in New Jersey.  X-  Mx C. Coverage of News, Sporting Events, or Other Events of Interest by Other  X-Stations Entitled to Carriage  X~- ` nx21. ` ` Statutory factor three is "whether any other television station that is eligible to be  xcarried by a cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section  xprovides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage  xof sporting and other events of interest to the community." In this instance CTEC alleges that  xthe New Jersey stations carried (WWORTV, WNJU, WHSE, WNET, WXTV, WNJN and  xWMBC) and the New York City stations carried (WCBSTV, WNBCTV, WNYW, WABCTV,  xWPIX, and WNET) provide extensive coverage of issues of concern to its New Jersey  xsubscribers. The stations generally do not dispute CTEC's factual claim as to carriage but deny  x>the relevance of this statutory factor in the context of a system operator's petition to delete  xcommunities from a station's market. WLNY notes that, of the stations cited by CTEC, three  xare foreignlanguage, one is a home shopping station, and two are public television stations that often carry the same programming. Xx "j$ X2,-(-(ZZF#"Ԍ X- xD. Station Audience in Communities Served by Cable System  X- ` x22. ` ` Statutory factor four is "evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable  xhouseholds within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community." There  xdoes not appear to be any dispute that none of the stations involved here have any audience in the cable communities involved, either in cable or in noncable households.  X_-x E. Other Considerations  X1- ` ox23. ` ` The factors specified in Section 614(h) do not purport to be exclusive and thus  xkother evidence may be considered that is helpful in defining the scope of the markets of the  xxstations involved. One such additional factor involves whether local newspapers or other listings  xof station programming that have circulation in the cable communities include the programming  xof the stations in question. CTEC includes television program listings from the Somerset  X - x?CourierNews, the Morris County Daily Record, the New Jersey edition of TV Guide to  xdemonstrate the absence of such a listing for WHAI. Neither WHAI nor WRNN dispute the  xabsence of newspaper listings. WLNY, however, notes that it is listed in the major New York  X{- x-City newspapers (which also have circulation in New Jersey) as well as in the Bergen Record and  Xf-the Parsippany Daily Record.  X:- ` bx24. ` ` Although at the present time the Commission uses Arbitron ADI market  xdefinitions, it has also suggested that Nielsen DMA designations would be of evidential interest  xin market modification proceeding as supporting or failing to support a proposed change in the  X- x=market of a particular station.3} {On- xԍFirst Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CS Docket 95178, 11FCC Rcd 6201, para. 46 (1996). CTEC cited, in support of its proposal with respect to WRNN,  xan earlier decision regarding this station which noted that Nielsen Media Research had assigned  x=the station to the AlbanySchenectadyTroy DMA for ratings purposes in its 1995 viewership  xstudy. "The evidence," that decision stated, "demonstrates, at least from Nielsen's standpoint, that  x WRNNTV, because of its location and Grade B contour, more aptly serves Albany and its  xenvirons, rather than the New York ADI" (footnote omitted indicating that WRNN's Grade B  Xk- xcontour covers Albany and Troy).{4k"} {O>-ԍComcast Cablevision of Monmouth County, 11 FCC Rcd 6440, at 6450 (CSB 1996).{ WRNN urges that this earlier statement was incorrect and  x<that the Commission wrongly stated that Nielsen had assigned WRNN to the Albany DMA. The  xjNielsen 1995 County/Coverage Study lists WRNN's (then identified as WTZA) "mkt of origin"  xas AlbanySchenectadyTroy and does not include it along with the New York market stations.  xThis information, while not controlling of the carriage rights of WRNN, was cited as evidence  xof how outside parties including the audience rating services and those making use of these services regarded the coverage and scope of WRNN's market. " 4,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-x F. Summary  X- ` "x25.` ` The cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules were adopted as part  xof the 1992 Cable Act. According to the legislative history of that Act, the use of ADI market  xareas is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they serve and  X- xwhich form their economic market."Z5} yO-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).Z The Act specifically provided that the Commission was  x{to consider adding additional communities or excluding communities from the markets of  X_- xtelevision stations "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements.=6_X} yOh -ԍ47 U.S.C. 534(h).=  xIn acting on such requests the Commission was instructed to "afford particular attention to the  xvalue of localism, taking into account four specified statutory factors." These factors, however,  X - xwere "not intended to be exclusive."[7 } yO-ԍ H.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).[ The market modification provisions of Section 614(h) are  x[said, in the legislative history, to "reflect a recognition that the Commission may conclude that  xa community within a station's ADI may be so far removed from the station that it cannot be  X - xdeemed part of the station's market.",8 x} yO-ԍ Id., We believe that the requested exclusion of the  x communities served by CTEC's cable systems from the markets of WLNY, WHAITV, and WRNN will better effectuate the purposes of the mustcarry statutory provisions.  Xy- ` x26. ` ` In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the statutory factors as well as  xother relevant information. WLNY, WHAITV, and WRNN have never been carried in the  xcommunities in question (factor I), provide no overtheair television broadcast service to the  xcommunities (factor II), and have no measured audience in the communities (factor IV). Other  xystations that are entitled to carriage do provide news and other information regarding issues of  x=concern to the communities (factor III). Given the statutory directive, weight must be given to  xzthese factors, but that must be done bearing in mind that the objective of the Section 614(h)  xprocess is to "better effectuate the purposes" of the broadcast signal carriage scheme. Thus, with  xirespect to the question of historical carriage patterns, attention must be paid to the circumstances  xfrom which such patterns developed. Some stations have not had the opportunity to build a  xrecord of historical carriage for specific reasons that do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to  X|- xthe geography of the market involved . Thus, these factors to the extent they are reflective of  x?circumstances outside of the shape of the market are not by themselves controlling in  xcircumstances where such an implementation of the 1992 Cable Act would, in effect, prevent  xweaker stations like WLNY, WRNN, and WHAITV, that cable systems had previously declined to carry, from ever obtaining carriage rights.  X- ` x27. ` ` At the same time we reject the argument that regardless of the Section 614(h)  xMprocess, stations are essentially guaranteed the right to carriage throughout the ADI. The"8,-(-(ZZ;"  x[provisions of the must carry statute specifically direct the Commission to exclude communities  X- xfrom a station's ADI where doing so will better effectuate the purposes of the legislation.P9} {Ob-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i).P The  xlegislative history notes that the Commission, in making market determinations, may conclude  xthat a community within a station's ADI may be "so far removed" from the station that it cannot  X-be deemed part of the station's market.X:Z} yO-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess.at 9798.X  Xv- ` x28.` ` Another factor to consider is the availability of other broadcasters in the market  X_- x=that are eligible for carriage and provide coverage of news, sporting events, or other events of  xinterest to the communities at issue. We reject the argument that this factor should not be  xconsidered in evaluating deletion requests. The notion that this factor should not be examined  xyin proceedings of this type is contrary to the statutory directive. We have stated, and reiterate  xhere, that where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights and  x[it is clear that the station is not providing local service to those communities, the issue of local  X - xNcoverage by other stations becomes a factor to which we will give greater weight. Such  xreasoning is not inconsistent with decisions in prior deletion cases in which we held that "we do  xynot believe the enhancement criterion should be used by a cable operator to bolster its request  xto delete communities from a station's television market whenever it could show that other  Xy- xKstations in the market serve the cable communities."g;y} {O-ԍNationwide Communications, Inc. 10 FCC Rcd at 13053 n.22.g In using such language, we were asserting  xzthat a cable operator seeking to delete communities from a station's market could not simply  x.point to the fact that it carried other local stations and, by that fact alone, satisfy its burden of  x proof. In other words, a cable operator's deletion request will not automatically be granted  x"whenever" it can show that it carries other local stations providing coverage of local issues.  xRather, carriage of other local stations may be used as an enhancement factor to support a cable  xoperator's deletion request when there is other evidence in the record that the communities at  xzissue are outside of the station's market. In the present case, CTEC carries numerous other  xstations licensed to communities in the New York ADI that provide coverage of local news and events.  X|- ` x29.` ` Given the difficulties of relying exclusively and explicitly on the statutory factors  xof historical carriage and viewing patterns, which could severely restrict the carriage rights of  xnew stations and stations with specialized formats, we have found it necessary to focus more  x-heavily on factors that are not influenced by the type or age of the stations involved or historical  X - xcarriage.[< |} {OM$-ԍ See Cablevision Systems Corp., supra. [ The scope of a local station's market may be measured through geographic means by  xexamining the distance between the station and the cable community subject to the deletion  xrequest and by taking into account natural phenomena such as waterways, mountains, and valleys  xthat tend to separate communities and define natural markets basic geographic, demographic,"<,-(-(ZZ;"  xxand political features that provide the best available alternative evidence of the market boundaries  xof the stations involved. In this regard the Commission has explicitly noted the relevance of  X- xKGrade B contours.X=} yOK- xԍAs a general matter, Grade B coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure of  {O- xa station's natural economic market. See Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd at 2977. See also  {O- xAmendment of Section 76.51 (OrlandoDaytona Beach, Melbourne, and Cocoa, Florida), 102 FCC 2d at 1070 ("We  xLbelieve that television stations actually do or logically can rely on the area within their Grade B contours for economic support.").X In the absence of other information, station service contours provide at least  X- xone objective measure of the scope of a stations local market. Here we note that WLNY and  xWHAITV are geographically separated from Somerset, Hunterdon, Morris and Mercer Counties  xboth in terms of mileage and by New York City and the Hudson River. Here, the City and the  xwaterway serve as natural market boundaries and correspond to the station's technical border as  x@reflected by its Grade B contour. While WRNN is not separated by all of these same  XH- xMgeographical obstacles it also is far distant in terms of mileage from the cable communities.  xyWhile neither the petitioning nor the opposing parties take note of the fact, the Mercer County  xcommunities of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township are sufficiently distant that they are actually in the Philadelphia market area.  X - ` _x30. ` ` Weighing against the grant of the petition is evidence relating to cable carriage in  xzother New Jersey communities and the fact that stations have demonstrated some efforts to  x=provide programming targeted to northern New Jersey. However, the pattern of cable carriage  xis not such as to demonstrate that the CTEC operations fall within the market areas of WLNY  xyand WRNN and reinforce the evidence as to WHAITVs absence from the area. This evidence  xdemonstrates at best that these communities are on the edge of the markets of WLNY and  xzWRNN. Since none of the stations have been recently licensed, the weight accorded to the  xxstatutory factors cannot be discounted due to insufficient time having elapsed for market patterns  x to be revealed. Moreover, the majority of the programming involved is of general interest  x[rather than specifically targeted to the communities here involved and does not serve, in terms  xiof the scope of the markets involved, to warrant inclusion of the communities involved with those  X-closer communities where deletion requests have previously been denied.>|} {O- xԍSee e.g. Cablevision Systems Corporation, DA 96826 (CSB released May 31, 1996)(request to delete Bergen County, New Jersey communities from market of WRNN denied). x  X- ` Qx31. ` ` We have carefully considered each statutory and other relevant factors in the  X- x=context of the circumstances presented here_?} {O"- xԍWe are under no obligation to give particular weight to any particular one of the several statutory factors. See  {O"- xTime Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 151, 175 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Accord Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78  xF.3d 620, 633634 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (When Congress directs an agency to consider certain factors, the agency simply  x"must reach an express and considered conclusion about the bearing of a factor, but is not required to give any specific weight to it.")_ and conclude that grant of CTEC's petition will effectuate the purposes of the must carry statutory provisions. "e ?,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-;v ORDER ă  X- ` x32.  1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)` ` 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,  xthat the petition filed on behalf of Home Link Communications of Princeton, L.P. and ComVideo  X-Systemsv, Inc. IS GRANTED .  X_- ` x33.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William H. Johnson x` `  hh@Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau  X-