WPC9 2MB%RK Z3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;P"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 <3|X 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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/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"" x yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.59.>  X-  ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ĐTP  Xe- ` Ax8.` ` Signal Carriage Complaint (CSR4925M). WTVE states that its city of license  xand the communities Suburban serves are all located in the Philadelphia ADI, and that WTVE  xkis thus entitled to carriage on Suburban's cable system. WTVE states that it has repeatedly  xattempted to install receiving equipment at its own expense on Suburban's tower to determine  xjthrough signal testing the need for equipment (which WTVE will supply at its own expense) to  xNallow Suburban to receive a good quality signal from the station. WTVE complains that  xSuburban has insisted upon a structural analysis of its tower prior to any equipment installation," ,N(N(ZZ;"  x=even for testing. WTVE contends that this is merely a delaying tactic on Suburban's part, and  xithat Suburban no longer responds to correspondence from WTVE. Accordingly, WTVE requests that the Commission order Suburban to commence carriage of WTVE's signal.  X- ` x9.` ` In response to WTVE, Suburban states that the station fails to reveal  xcorrespondence which shows that Suburban no longer insists on a structural analysis of its tower.  xSuburban further states that WTVE fails to reveal that Suburban has conducted signal strength  xtests which reveal that WTVE fails to deliver a good quality signal to Suburban's principal  x[headend. Suburban submits test results which show that on October 9, 1996, in rainy weather,  X1- xSuburban measured WTVE's signal at Suburban's headend for six hours beginning at 6 p.m., and  xfound WTVE's signal strength to vary between 63.75 dBm and 64.85 dBm. Suburban argues  xthat WTVE is not entitled to carriage on Suburban's system until the station provides a signal  X -strength of 45 dBm or better,J  yOe -ԍ 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(B)(iii).J and urges that WTVE's complaint be denied.  X - ` x10.` ` Market Modification Petition (CSR4986A). Addressing the statutory factors for  x.market modification, Suburban states that it has never carried WTVE, even though the station  xbegan operation in May 1980. Suburban notes that WTVE never even sought carriage on  xSuburban's system until 1993. In addition, Suburban states that several other area cable systems  xldo not carry WTVE. Suburban contends that the Schuylkill River separates WTVE from  xSuburban's communities, and argues that this reveals the station's geographic attenuation from  X6- xthe communities in question.~ 6X {O?-ԍ Suburban cities Cablevision Systems Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 2485, 2491 (1997).~ Suburban further argues that WTVE fails to provide an adequate  xZsignal to Suburban's headend, and references its opposition to WTVE's signal carriage complaint.  xSuburban submits a copy of WTVE's program schedule, which, Suburban states, shows that  xWTVE provides no local programming directed toward the needs and interests of Suburban's  xsubscribers, but rather consists almost exclusively of infomercials. Suburban notes that it does  xcarry on its system several Philadelphia ADI licensees which provide extensive coverage of local  xknews, sports, traffic, weather, and other information directed toward Chester, Delaware, and  X- xZLancaster County residents._  yO0- xiԍ Suburban supplies a channel lineup which indicates that Suburban carries Stations KYWTV (CBS, Channel  x;3), WPVITV (ABC, Channel 6), WCAUTV (NBC, Channel 10), WPHLTV (WB, Channel 17), WTXFTV (Fox,  xChannel 29), WPSGTV (UPN, Channel 57), and WTGITV (Ind., Channel 61), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; WHYY x;TV (PBS, Channel 12), Wilmington, Delaware; and WNJS (PBS, Channel 23), Camden, New Jersey. Suburban notes that it also carries Station WGALTV (NBC, Channel 8), Lancaster, Pennsylvania._ In addition, Suburban carries a public, education, and government  xaccess channel as well as a local origination channel. Suburban states that it also carries the  xxWeather Channel, which provides local weather information of interest to Suburban's subscribers.  xjSuburban further argues that WTVE's viewing in Chester, Delaware, and Lancaster Counties is  xnonexistent, and is not even listed by Nielsen for those counties. In addition, Suburban states that"9 ,N(N(ZZ"  xWTVE is not listed by the Commission as being significantly viewed in any Pennsylvania  X- xcounty.  yOy- x<ԍ In order to be declared to be significantly viewed, an independent station must achieve a 2% share of total viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 5% in noncable homes. 47 C.F.R. 76.5(i). Suburban also notes that neither the Daily Local News nor the Southeast Pennsylvania  X-edition of TV Guide list WTVE's program offerings.  X- ` x11.` ` WTVE argues in opposition that its city of license is only twentysix miles from  xSuburban's principal headend. WTVE states that it is seeking to enforce its carriage rights on  x]other area systems, and expects to be carried in Philadelphia as of April 16, 1997; in New  x/Montgomery as of May 1, 1997; and in Radnor soon thereafter. Currently, states WTVE, it  x[reaches almost one half million cable households. WTVE maintains that the Schuylkill River is  x/small, and constitutes no barrier to communities adjacent to WTVE. WTVE states that it is  x[capable of providing a good quality signal to Suburban with a Blonder Tongue Model SCMA xUB51 amplifier, which WTVE is willing to provide. WTVE states that the fact that viewers  xpurchase merchandise advertised on the station attests to its viewership. WTVE also states that  xxcable penetration in the communities in question exceeds seventy percent, explaining the station's  xlimited viewing as it is excluded from cable carriage. WTVE notes that it encompasses  x<Suburban's principal headend with a City Grade signal contour, which has previously been found  X-to be "decisive" in cases such as WTVE's.b7 {O|-ԍ WTVE cites Cablevision Systems Corporation, supra.b  Xf- ` x12.` ` In reply, Suburban argues that WTVE's opposition was not properly served, and  xthus should not be considered. Suburban contends that WTVE concedes that many area cable  xsystems, including the area's largest, do not carry the station. Suburban argues that WTVE has  xyet to demonstrate that it provides a good quality signal to Suburban's principal headend.  xSuburban notes that the Schuylkill River is over fortyfive miles long, and thus in fact separates  xWTVE from Suburban's communities. Suburban maintains that WTVE does not dispute that its  xprogramming is not directed toward Suburban's communities. Suburban notes that the  xCommission has previously found that the programming of home shopping stations such as  X- xWTVE has no specific ties to communities. {O(-ԍ Suburban cites Time Warner New York City Cable Group, DA 961645, at 20 (released September 17, 1996). Suburban notes, too, that WTVE acknowledges its lack of measured viewing in the communities Suburban serves.  Xi- ANALYSIS AND DECISION ĐTP  X;- ` nx13.` ` We turn first to Suburban's market modification petition, to determine whether the  xcommunities served by Suburban should be removed from WTVE's ADI. A resolution of this  xmatter will determine whether WTVE is eligible to claim carriage rights in these communities.  xWe initially address two procedural matters. First, Suburban contends that WTVE's opposition  xshould be dismissed because it was not served on all persons listed in Suburban's certificate of"[,N(N(ZZ"  X- xservice, as mandated by 76.7(d) of the Commission's rules.@ yOy-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.7(d).@ We disagree. We note that  xSuburban raises this issue in its reply, which Suburban served on all persons served with  xSuburban's petition, and none of these persons has complained. In the interests of maintaining  xa full record for decision in this matter, and in the absence of any demonstrated prejudice to any  xparty, we will accept WTVE's opposition. Second, we note that one of the communities affected  xby the instant petitions, Sadsbury Township in Lancaster County, is not in the Philadelphia ADI  xjbut rather is in the HarrisburgYorkLancasterLebanon, Pennsylvania ADI. Accordingly, with respect to this community, the instant petitions are moot.  X1- ` nx14.` ` In view of all the facts and circumstances relevant to this proceeding, we find that  xythe communities Suburban serves in the Philadelphia ADI are not so attenuated from WTVE to  xwarrant deleting these communities from the station's ADI. While we recognize that WTVE has  xno history of carriage in the communities in question, where, as is the case here, a petitioner  xLseeks to delete its communities from a station's ADI with respect to a cable system, we believe  X - xthat failure to establish historic carriage should not, by itself, be given determinative weight. X {O-ԍ See, e.g., Kansas City Cable Partners d/b/a American Cablevision of Kansas City, 10 FCC Rcd 3807 (1995).  xNor do we believe that Suburban has succeeded in demonstrating that WTVE does not provide  xlocal service to Suburban's communities. All of the communities in question, including  x=Suburban's principal headend community are encompassed by WTVE's City Grade or Grade A  xcontour, or lie just at the edge of the station's Grade A contour. In addition, the communities  xin question lie within 35 miles of WTVE's city of license. Suburban's principal headend  xycommunity is only 26 miles from WTVE's city of license. We find this evidence of local service  X- xto be decisive.o {O-ԍ See, e.g., Cablevision Systems Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd at 2491.o This differentiates this case from Time Warner New York City Cable Group,  X- xsupra, in which the station in question failed even to place a Grade B contour over the  x-communities in question. Nor, given all the circumstances involved, are we prepared to conclude that the Schuylkill River is a natural barrier defining a market boundary.  X- ` Bx15.` ` The third factor to consider in market deletion cases is the availability of other  xxbroadcasters in the market. While carriage of other local stations may be used as an enhancement  x[factor to support a cable operator's deletion request when there is other evidence in the record  x=that the communities at issue are outside of the station's market, this is not the case before us.  xThat Suburban carries other stations which arguably provide news or other coverage of issue of  x\concern to Suburban's communities is not sufficient in this context to justify removal of the  xcommunities from WTVE's ADI. With respect to viewership (the fourth statutory factor),  xmSuburban argues that WTVE lacks viewing in the communities Suburban serves, and  xdemonstrates this with Nielsen viewership data, which records no viewing of WTVE in  xcommunities in Chester or Delaware Counties. However, WTVE's lack of carriage in these"|,N(N(ZZ"  X- xheavily cabled communities, as well as the station's specialty station type programming format,u {Oy-ԍ See, e.g., Channel 56 of Orlando, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 4071, 4081 (1996).u  x.likely explain why WTVE's ratings are low in Chester and Delaware Counties. We believe that  xin the circumstances of the present case a station's limited viewership should not be given  X-determinative weight, in view of the heavily cabled nature of the communities.Z {O- xiԍ See The Chronicle Publishing Company d/b/a Ventura County Cablevision, 10 FCC Rcd 9474, 94819482 (1995).  X- ` nx16.` ` In view of the foregoing, we find that Suburban has not demonstrated that WTVE  xjlacks a sufficient nexus with the communities Suburban serves. Deletion of these communities from WTVE's ADI is therefore not warranted.  X1- ` x17.` ` Turning to WTVE's signal carriage complaint, having found that grant of  xSuburban's petition for market modification is not warranted, we find the only issue remaining  xis that of WTVE's signal strength. While Suburban submits test results purporting to demonstrate  xxthat WTVE fails to supply a signal of adequate strength to Suburban's principal headend, we note  xthat Suburban's tests were not performed in full accordance with Commission specifications.  x=There is no indication of the date of most recent calibration of the equipment used, nor does it  xkappear that the measurements were taken at a height at which a receiving antenna would be  xplaced. In addition, WTVE has stated its willingness to provide the specific amplifying  xequipment that would allow Suburban to receive a good quality signal from the station.  xConsequently, we shall order Suburban to carry WTVE's signal once WTVE provides a good  xZquality signal employing the specialized equipment it has offered to install at Suburban's principal headend.  X-  ORDERING CLAUSES TP  X- ` 2x18.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , that the petition for special relief (CSR4986A)  X- xfiled March 21, 1997 by Suburban Cable TV Co. Inc. IS DISMISSED to the extent indicated  X-at paragraph 13, supra, and in all other respects IS DENIED .  X~- ` x19.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED , that the "Complaint" (CSR4926M) filed January  Xg- x30, 1997 by Reading Broadcasting, Inc., IS GRANTED , in accordance with 614(d)(3) of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 534) and 47 C.F.R. 76.56(b). Suburban  X9- xzCable TV Co., Inc. IS ORDERED to commence carriage of television station WTVE within sixty (60) days from the day that WTVE provides a good quality signal at Suburban's principal"",N(N(ZZ\"  xkheadend. WTVE shall notify Suburban Cable in writing of its carriage and channel position  xelections (76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules) within thirty (30) days of providing a good quality signal.  X- ` x20.` ` 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