WPC^ 2MBVR KZ3|X7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7HP4Si (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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNeBDoc 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@8:6>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` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf6P  ` ` ` hhh 28D7?8d@9#AKAa6Paragraph 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 "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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2MKjDKFKIKKK"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\\5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX\{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X2e=5,D&e4  pG;&2 K7X^ZV^"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\y.X80,IX\  P6G;P7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,Xn4  pG;Xy.\80, {\4  pG;2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hPH5!,,5\  P6G;,P\5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX\{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X2e=5,D&e4  pG;&P:% ,1J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&Xhp x (# yO- X   P^} S-#&a\  P6G;0&P#  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 971711 #Xj\  P6G;+XP#у  yxdddy P #V v3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S -#&a\  P6G;0&P#In re:R) R)  S-TCI Cablevision of Texas, Inc., R)hppCSR 4997A R) For Modification of the Television Market of R) Station KTFH, Conroe, TexasR) R) x` ` andR) R)  S -Paxson Houston License, Inc., R)hppCSR 4978M R) MustCarry Complaint Concerning R) Carriage of Television Broadcast Station R) KTFH, Conroe, TexasR)  S-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  SP-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:station's argument that KTFH's lack of historical carriage should not be controlling nor be given great  x.weight, TCI asserts that the Commission has consistently held that historical carriage will be considered  xkalong with the other three market modification factors which, in this instance, weigh in favor of TCI's  xrequest. TCI further asserts that Paxson failed to show that either "Houston Hour" or "Texas Financial  xNews" produced locally for KTFH are tailored for the Communities. Even if they are so tailored, TCI  SP- xclaims such offerings are de minimus at best, amounting to an estimated one percent of KTFH's entire  xLbroadcast. TCI also argues that the foreign language programming carried by KTFH is not automatically  x.of local interest to speakers of that language any more than is English language programming, absent any  xshowing, as is the case here, of the local aspects of such programming. TCI notes that the Commission  xhas indicated that a station may not be considered local solely by airing some occasional programming  xassociated with some of the communities in question and that such occasional programming does not serve  Sb- xas a quid pro quo that guarantees carriage. b~o {O%- xԍCiting TCI of Illinois, Inc., DA 971002 (Cable Serv. Bur.) released May 12, 1997, ar  24, and Time Warner  {OJ&-Cable, DA 971009 (Cable Serv. Bur.) released May 13, 1997, at 18.  TCI further argues that KTFH's programming format,  x{which, according to the station, provides an effective advertising platform for local businesses and"<,_(_(II "  x/community organizations, is not shown to be local programming. TCI observes also that KTFH has  xvirtually no audience share in the Communities. Finally, TCI points out that KTFH is owned by a major  xtelevision station group owner, who by its own account is an experienced operator of independent  S- xtelevision stations with facilities in numerous markets,:o yO-ԍOpposition, at 10.: and is therefore not the struggling independent station suggested by Paxson's opposition.  S-W ANALYSIS AND DECISION TP  S- ` x23.` ` We shall grant TCI's request for modification of the market of KTFH, Conroe, Texas, by  xdeleting from that market the Communities served by TCI's cable system. TCI's deletion petition is a  x\legitimate request to redraw station market boundaries to make them congruous with market realities.  xBased on the geography and the four statutory factors, we find that the Communities in issue here are  x-sufficiently removed from KTFH that they ought not be deemed part of the station's market for mandatory  x\carriage purposes. Specifically, TCI has made a persuasive case that Clute, Freeport, and Richmond,  xjTexas and unincorporated portions of Brazoria County, Texas, which are located in the southern portion  xof the Houston ADI, are not logically part of the market of KTFH, which is located in the northern  xKportion of the Houston ADI approximately 85 miles distant. Our decision herein comports with, and helps  xeffectuate, Section 614 of the 1992 Cable Act, so that the market anomalies presented in this case could  xbe properly rectified as contemplated by Congress when it included the market modification provisions in Section 614(h)  S- ` x24.` ` Turning to the fourpart market modification test set forth in Section 614, it is not disputed  x[that KTFH has no history of carriage with respect to any of the communities in question. Regarding the  xprovision of locally oriented programming, we agree with TCI that the amount of local interest  S@- xprogramming provided to residents of the Communities by KTFH is an insufficient basis on which to find  xa commonality of market. Currently, KTFH airs "Houston Hour" or "Texas Financial News" produced  xlocally for KTFH, which were not shown to be specifically tailored for the Communities as opposed to  S- xthe Houston area at large. In any event, these offerings are de minimus at best, amounting to only a small  x.portion of KTFH's entire broadcast. Although Paxson expresses hope that some portion of KTFH's air  xtime devoted to programlength presentations will be acquired by national and local businesses and  xcommunity organizations within two years, the station provides no specific examples showing that any  x=such presentations are tailored to the communities in question today. We cannot conclude that a station  xmust be considered "local," as Congress intended that term to mean in Section 614 of the 1992 Cable Act,  xsolely by airing some occasional programming potentially associated with some of the communities in  x/question. Paxson asks that we take into consideration its future programming commitments. For the  xLpurposes of determining whether a station is local to a specific market at a given point in time, our focus  xis on the programming actually being aired. We are unable to base our market modification decision on  xjprogramming that may or may not be aired at some future date. Programming is considered in the context  xof Section 614 proceedings only insofar as it serves to demonstrate the scope of a station's market and  S - xservice area, not as a quid pro quo that guarantees carriage or as an obligation that must be met to obtain carriage. The lack of actual, targeted programming in this case weighs against KTFH in our analysis.  St#- ` x25.` ` Regarding viewing patterns, again it is not disputed that KTFH has virtually no overthe xair or cable audience in the communities in question. For that reason, excluding the Communities from  xKTFH's market would not disrupt established viewing patterns nor deprive the station of any existing"$% X,_(_(II&"  xcable audience. Another factor to consider in market deletion cases is the availability of other broadcasters  x.in the market. We reject Paxson's argument that carriage of other local stations should not be considered  xin evaluating a cable operator's deletion request. The notion that this factor should not be examined in  xZthe instant proceeding is contrary to the statutory directive. The 1992 Cable Act specifically provides that,  S`- xin considering requests to either include or exclude communities from a station's television market, the  xyCommission shall take into account factors such as the carriage of other local stations by a cable operator  S- xserving the communities at issue.o {Oz-ԍSee, Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 614(h)(1)(C)(ii), 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(l)(C)(ii). We have also stated, and reiterate here, that where a cable operator  xis seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights in certain communities within its ADI, and it is  xclear that the station is not providing local service to those communities, the issue of local coverage by  xother stations becomes a factor to which we will give greater weight than in cases where a party is seeking  xto add communities. Paxson insists that such reasoning is inconsistent with a prior deletion case in which  xwe held that "we do not believe the enhancement criterion should be used by a cable operator to bolster  xits request to delete communities from a station's television market whenever it could show that other  S - xstations in the market serve the cable communities."g Zo {O-ԍNationwide Communications, Inc. 10 FCC Rcd at 13053 n.22.g In using such language, we were asserting that a  xcable operator seeking to delete communities from a station's market could not simply point to the fact  xthat it carried other local stations and, by that fact alone, satisfy its burden of proof. In other words, a  x[cable operator's deletion request will not automatically be granted whenever it can show carriage of other  xlocal stations. Rather, carriage of other local stations may be used as an enhancement factor to support  xa cable operator's deletion request when other evidence shows the communities at issue to be outside of  xthe station's market. In the present case, TCI carries numerous network affiliated and independent stations  xjlicensed to communities in the Houston ADI which provide coverage of local news and events, and other  S- x-evidence of record discussed herein shows the Communities served by TCI to be outside KTFH's market.=o {OF-ԍSee supra.n 12.=  xIn particular, KTFH's Grade B contour falls significantly short of the Communities at issue in this case,  xand its programming is not viewed in any measurable amount in the Communities, which are  xLgeographically distant, approximately 85 miles and on the other side of the Houston ADI, from KTFH's  xcity of license, Conroe, Texas. Local service availability from a technical point of view and geography  x=are factors that must be given significant weight in delineating the station's market in this particular case.  S- `  x26.` ` Paxson argues that there is a strong presumption of carriage throughout a station's ADI.  x-This argument invites us to ignore the four statutory factors set forth in the market modification provisions  xand to rely instead on this presumption. For instance, as noted above, Paxson claims the availability of  xyother local stations in the market should not be considered in this case. In addition, Paxson discounts the  xlack of historical carriage and nonexistent viewership as insignificant to our decision. Section 614(h) of  xkthe 1992 Cable Act, however, specifically and unambiguously directs the Commission, in considering  xMrequests for market modification, to afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into  x account these factors. We have previously observed that the must carry rules "were not intended to  xtransform an otherwise local station into a regional super station that must be automatically carried in  S:- x[every single community in an ADI ... .":~o {OX&-ԍSee Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 6541 (CSB 1996) at  25. Paxson says the only circumstance in which deletion of a local  x=station would enhance localism is where a cable system is unable, in the absence of deletion, to carry the" ,_(_(II!"  xzsignal of another station that is outside of the ADI market and that provides demonstrably more local  xkservice. We find these interpretations of Section 614(h) of the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's  ximplementing regulations too restrictive and without a sufficient basis in either the legislative history or  xjthe wording of the statute. The statute, on its face, does not limit market deletion requests only to those  x>situations where an outofthemarket station is more deserving of carriage than an inmarket station.  x!There is also no language in the legislative history of Section 614(h) directly supporting Paxson's  x]viewpoint, nor is there any in the Commission's rules. To the contrary, Paxson ignores Congress'  xdirective allowing either broadcasters or cable operators to ask for market modifications so that a station's  S-ADI could better reflect the economic market at hand.`o yO( -ԍH.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 66 at 97 (1992).`  Sp- $MUSTCARRY COMPLAINT ă  S - ` #x27.` ` Section 614 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules permit  xLstations to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within their market. We agree with  xyPaxson that the mustcarry rules seek to ensure cable carriage of local stations in order to strengthen their  xyeconomic viability and thereby allow for greater diversity in programming. The prerequisite for asserting  xZmustcarry rights with respect to a particular cable system, however, is that the operator serve communities  SX- xin the station's market or ADI. Paxson filed a mustcarry complaint against TCI seeking carriage on the  xcable operator's systems which serve Clute, Freeport, and Richmond, Texas and Brazoria County, Texas.  x[The communities of Clute, Freeport, and Richmond, Texas and Brazoria County, Texas served by these  S- x[systems have been deleted from KTFH's market by this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Because we  xhave granted TCI's petition to delete these communities from KTFH's market, the associated complaint filed by Paxson for mandatory carriage of KTFH is rendered moot.  SD-1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S- ` Ox28.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934,  xas amended, 47 U.S.C. 534, and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59, that the petition  S-for special relief (CSR4997A) filed on beha lf of TCI Cablevision of Texas, Inc. IS GRANTED .  ST- ` x29.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the MustCarry Complaint (CSR4978M) filed by  S,-Paxson Houston License, Inc., licensee of television station KTFH, on March 19, 1997, IS DISMISSED .  S- ` _x30.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam H. Johnson x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau