WPC] 2MBVRKZ3|X7jC:,yoXj\  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/>/>/>/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\Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font 11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#toc 1toc 1!` hp x (#44` hp x (#2 7".#0$2%4toc 2toc 2"` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3#` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4$` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5%` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#2>&?7'v]9(9);toc 6toc 6&` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7' toc 8toc 8(` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9)` hp x (#44` hp x (#2_E*A>+_@,}B-Dindex 1index 1*` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2+` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa,` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption-;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2H.E/KF0 G1G_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~J2}HH3H4MI5Ia1Paragraph 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` ` `  2M6J7YK8 L9La5Paragraph 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 2VKMKPK^R KT"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\"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>lBBn7"i~'^ ((C>(-((((((((((---#J:55:2-:::2F::-:5-2::K::2%(#(#(#(((>((((((:((#&&++%(:#:#:#:#:#F45#2#2#2#2#:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:#:(:':(:(:(-(:#:#:#5#5#5+5#:22#2#2#2#:(:(:(:+:(:+:(((8-++:(22 222:(/:(:(:(:(F:555----+2"22%:(:(:(:(:(:(K::+2#2#2#:(2:(-2:(2((W888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN00%(#((((M(==(==(=##(P0P((N1=PP00/CC--P#(CP"5555==JPP(=P0.+(-N00P("i~'^5>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\2 K&W^qY]"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNFinally, it points to Commission findings where specialty stations, such as WTGITV, were deemed  S-  "capable of offer[ing] desirable diversity of programming. . . yet typically attract limited audiences."n^ {O@-  JԍSee Nationwide Communications, Inc., dba EagleVision, 10 FCC Rcd 13050 (1995); Further Report and Order  {O -  in Docket 20553, 53 FCC 2d 442 (1976), recon. denied, 60 FCC 2d 661 (1976); and Home Shopping Report and  {O-Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5327 (1993).n   WTGITV states that in view of these precedents, the present request for deletion of the Communities from WTGITV's market should be denied.  S8-  13.` ` Paxson argues further that affording decisional weight to lack of carriage in the context   of small, specialty stations like WTGITV would have the effect of preventing weaker stations from ever  S-  kbeing carried. {Ov -  xԍCiting Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 8045, 8048 (CSB 1995); and Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 6663, 6667 (CSB 1995); In that event, only well established, centrally located stations with powerful Grade B   {signals would be able to achieve carriage throughout their ADI, Paxson contends. Paxson says the   Commission recognizes that the specialty format of stations like WTGITV is capable of offering desirable   Ldiversity of programming despite typically attracting limited audiences. Paxson says evidence of lack of   yviewing of WTGITV in the Communities therefore should not be deemed significant for that reason, and  S -also for the reason that such stations have been found by the Commission to enjoy significant viewership.r H {O-ԍCiting Home Shopping Station Issues, 8 FCC Rcd 5321, at 5327 (1993).r  S -  $14.` ` Paxson claims WTGITV airs programming of local interest to Service's subscribers as   well as residents throughout the Philadelphia ADI by means of a format that combines "programlength   presentations by local and national businesses and community organizations with religious and local public  SX-  affairs programming."WX yO-ԍOpposition to Petition for Special Relief at 7.W It claims these programs offer a valuable and cost effective local platform to   businesses and community organizations to communicate with residents throughout the Philadelphia ADI.   In addition, Paxson cites "City Talk" as a public affairs program that addresses local issues and features   local public service organizations operating in Philadelphia and the surrounding communities. Paxson also  S-identifies four locally produced programs as having clear local ties.j  yO-  [ԍThe four locally produced programs are "Law Journal," Train Time," "The Good News," and "Panorama   JPolska." "Law Journal" is produced in Allentown by an Allentown attorney, features attorneys from Allentown and   the surrounding area, and airs two to three times a month. "The Good News" provides art and entertainment news   for the Philadelphia area and airs once a week. "Panorama Polska" addresses issues of interest to the Polish   community in the Philadelphia ADI and airs once a week. "Job Connection" provides job interview, recruitment, and job opening information throughout the Philadelphia ADI and airs once a week.  Sh-  o15.` ` Finally, Paxson contends the carriage of WTGITV on two other cable systems serving   .communities in Berks and Bucks County provide evidence of the belief of both the station and the cable   systems involved of a market nexus between the stations and the communities where the station is  S-  \carried. {Or&-  ԍCiting Maranatha Broadcasting Company v. TKR Cable Company, Hamilton Township, DA 971150, Cable  {O<'-Serv. Bur., released June 5, 1997 ("Maranatha"). Since WTGITV is carried on cable systems in close proximity to Service's cable system at">,_(_(II%"   issue here, Paxson contends the policy concerning station carriage on cable systems in close proximity  S-employed in Maranatha supports denial of the instant petition.  S-  16.` ` In reply, Service contends its market modification request is consistent with Section 614   of the Communications Act and the Commission's regulations implementing that provision. In this   connection Service argues that market modification is particularly appropriate in this case, because WTGI  TV is quite remote from the Communities at issue here. Services suggests the requested market exclusion  S-  is consistent with, and even compelled by, Time Warner Cable (WTGITV), 11 FCC Rcd 13149 (CSB   1996), where the Commission excluded Reading, Pennsylvania and certain other Berks County,   Pennsylvania communities from WTGITV's market on the basis of facts and circumstances similar to that  St-  involved in the present case. Comparing the facts and circumstances here with those involved in Time  SN -  Warner Cable under the elements of the statutory four factor test, Service argues that the record here is  S( -  even more compelling than that presented in Time Warner Cable. Service also points to dissimilarities   [in the present case from cases relied upon by Paxson in opposition to the petition. For example, Service  S -  notes that in one cited case,\  {OB-ԍTime Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 936 (CSB 1995). \ the station transmitter was only 26 miles from the cable system headend and   the station's Grade A contour encompassed the community that was not excluded from the market. In  S -  another case,[ Z {O-ԍTime Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 8045 (CSB 1995)[ Service notes that the Dayton ADI is much more compact than the Philadelphia ADI, that   the Dayton ADI and the relevant station were a mere 25 miles apart, and that the station's Grade B or   >better signal encompassed all of the communities in question. Service characterizes the programming  S-  locally produced on WTGITV as de minimis at best and insufficient to throw the weight of this factor   in Paxson's favor. Service then reemphasizes its carriage of other stations that provide local service to   the Communities, which it contrasts with the lack of WTGITV viewing in the Communities. Finally,   Service denies that other cable systems carrying WTGITV in Berks and Bucks County are in close  St-  proximity to its cable system as claimed by Paxson,t {O-  ԍPaxson cites Maranatha Broadcasting Company v. TKR Cable Company, Hamilton Township, DA 971150, Cable Serv. Bur., released June 5, 1997. asserting that the communities in which WTGITV   Mare carried are approximately 30 to 40 miles from, and not adjoining to, the Communities its systems serve.  S- B. MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENTS: WGTWTV, Burlington, New Jersey  S-  17.` ` Addressing its request for modification of WGTWTV's market, Service concedes that its   {system commenced carrying WGTWTV following a recent modification of the station's facilities.   However, it asserts that its direct competitors in the Lehigh Valley do not carry WGTWTV. Service   asserts further that no cable system in Berks, Bucks, Lehigh and Northampton Counties carried WGTW  TV until 1995 and even then only systems in lower Bucks County within close proximity to Philadelphia   commenced carrying the station. Service maintains that WGTWTV does not provide local coverage to   /the communities, pointing out that WGTWTV's transmitter is located approximately 40 miles from   jAllentown, Pennsylvania, where the cable system headend is located. Service adds that Burlington, New   Jersey, WGTWTV's city of license, is approximately 83 miles from the Kutztown portion of its system,   z68 miles from the Allentown portion, 65 miles from the Bethlehem portion, 67 miles from the Easton   portion, and 84 miles from the Bangor portion, and separated from those communities by the Pennsylvania" F,_(_(IIt""   \state line. Service contends that WGTWTV's presumptive delivery of a predicted Grade B signal to   .portions of its systems' communities "is a misnomer," that, despite recent modifications to WGTWTV   Lfacilities, "problems have been observed in the station's picture quality," and that "noncable subscribers   Lin the Communities likely still may not be able to receive the station offair" because they don't have the  S`-  advantage of Service's mountain top reception facility.7` yO-ԍPetition, p. 9.7 Service reiterates the substantial amounts of local   programming from other stations that its system carries and points out the absence of viewing of WGTW  \TV in the Communities, stemming from the poor quality of WGTWTV's signal in the Communities.   .Service also claims the inability of Community residents to obtain information concerning WGTWTV's   programming contributes to the absence of WGTWTV viewing in the Communities. Service submits that,   by showing an absence of WGTWTV coverage or local service, the geographic distance of WGTWTV   from the Communities, the provision by other stations of news and sports programming of local interest,   and the absence of WGTWTV viewing in the Communities, it demonstrated that the proposed exclusion   [of the Communities from WGTWTV's market is warranted and would better effectuate the purposes of the mandatory carriage regulations.  S -  18.` ` Brunson in opposition takes the position that WGTWTV, while licensed to Burlington,   New Jersey, should have the same carriage rights in the Communities as do Philadelphia stations. It rests   [this position on several arguments. First, it notes the location of WGTWTV's transmitter in an antenna   ="farm" in the Roxborough section of Philadelphia that is "shared by all of the television stations licensed  S-  to Philadelphia," and the location of the station's studio in Philadelphia.HX yO-ԍBrunson opposition, p. 1 & p. 5.H Brunson also points out that   NBurlington, WGTWTV's city of license, is on the Delaware River "in the immediate Philadelphia  S-  metropolitan area, and is even part of the Philadelphia urbanized Area."7 {O@-ԍId, p. 5.7 Brunson asserts further that   WGTWTV places a predicted Grade B signal over the headend of Service's cable system and over   Allentown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania which are among the principal communities served by that   >system. Finally, Brunson notes that WGTWTV has been carried on Service's system since last fall.   Brunson's position is essentially that, because Service's system carries virtually all of the Philadelphia   stations and WGTWTV is, in essence, a Philadelphia station, the Commission should not sanction the   [discrimination against WGTWTV that would result should the Communities be removed from WGTWTV's market and WGTWTV lose carriage rights on Service's cable systems as proposed in the petition.  SP-  o19.` ` Brunson concedes that the signal of WGTWTV may not be well received offair in the   yLehigh Valley because of an intervening mountain range. But Brunson argues that that intervening terrain   is the cause of the difficulty Lehigh Valley residents have in receiving the signals of all Philadelphia and   Burlington stations. Brunson argues that, if receipt of television signals offair were the criterion as   suggested by Service's argument, then the Lehigh Valley should be completely severed from the   /Philadelphia ADI. It suggests that the New York City stations as well as stations from Philadelphia,   LReading, Scranton and WilkesBarre would not be viewable in the Lehigh Valley because of mountainous   kterrain, absent carriage on cable. Moreover, Brunson asserts that WGTWTV is located considerably   closer to the Communities than are several of the other stations Service carries, such as the New York City   stations, for example. Brunson requests that the Lehigh Valley communities at issue here not be removed   =from WGTWTV's market, so long as that area remains within the market of WGTWTV's competitors. "! z,_(_(IIU#"  S-  It contends that the Commission, in Kansas City Cable Partners, supra, rejected an attempt by a cable   system to discriminate against one local station while continuing to carry other local stations, and that   Service's attempt to discriminate against WGTWTV should likewise be rejected here. Brunson urges the   .Commission not to disrupt WGTWTV's service to the Communities through carriage on Service's cable   by granting the petition. Such service disruption would occur because, Brunson concedes, the intervening   >mountainous terrain keeps WGTWTV's offair signal from reaching the Lehigh Valley the same as it   idoes that of other Philadelphia stations. Brunson says the proposed discrimination would adversely impact   jon WGTWTV viewership and lessen competition for other Philadelphia stations; results the must carry provisions were designed to prevent.  Sr-  20.` ` Lastly, Brunson notes that WGTWTV is the only television station in the country that   \is owned and managed by African American women. Brunson concedes that such ownership is not a   decisionally significant factor standing alone. However, it requests the station's ownership not be ignored in considering carriage rights among similarly situated television stations.  S -  21.` ` Service in reply contends that Brunson failed to rebut evidence showing that WGTWTV   has no relevant history of carriage in the Communities, provides no coverage or local service to the   Communities, and has no local viewing. It notes again that other stations qualified for carriage in the   Communities provide coverage of news or programming of local interest. Service distinguishes this case  S -  =from that of station WFMZTV in Maranatha and KMCI(TV) in Kansas City Cable Partners. It notes  S-  that unlike WFMZTV in Maranatha, which also involved system carriage of other stations, WGTWTV   in this case fails to satisfy each of the other statutory factors that must be considered in this context.  S-  yAnd unlike Kansas City Cable Partners, where the Commission declined to delete Kansas City ADI core   communities from the market of station KMCI(TV), Service asserts that its system operates neither in Philadelphia ADI core communities nor in close proximity to WGTWTV.  S-  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  S-A. WTGITV, Wilmington, Delaware.  SX-  222.` ` We shall grant Service's request for modification of the market of WTGITV, Wilmington,   Delaware by deleting from that market the Communities served by Service's cable system at issue here.   Service has made a persuasive case that the Communities served by its cable system are not logically part   of the market of WTGITV, which is located in Delaware, substantially more than 70 miles from any of  S-  =the principle communities served by Service.  yO -  ԍThe record shows that WTGITV's city of license, Wilmington, Delaware, is approximately 83 miles from the   JKutztown portion of Service's system, 77 miles from the Allentown portion, 74 miles from the Bethlehem portion,   92 miles from the Easton portion, and 109 miles from the Bangor portion as well as separated from those communities by the Pennsylvania state line.  Based on the geography and information provided under   all four statutory factors, we find that the Communities in issue here are sufficiently removed from WTGI  TV that they ought not be deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage purposes. This"h ,_(_(II"  S-  decision is also consistent with our decision in Time Warner Cable, 11 FCC Rcd 13149 (CSB 1996), in  S-which certain communities of Berks County, Pennsylvania were deleted from WTGITV's market.^ {OB-  KԍThe communities deleted from WTGITV's market in Time Warner Cable were less remote from WTGITV  {O -  than the Communities at issue here. See Time Warner Cable, at  12. We note that a petition for reconsideration  {O-of Time Warner Cable has been filed with the Commission.  S-  23.` ` Turning to the fourpart market modification test set forth in Section 614(h), it is not   =disputed that WTGITV has no history of carriage on the cable systems serving any of the communities   in question. The information of record indicates that WTGITV provides some programming of potential   general interest but provides very little, if any, programming with specific ties to any of the Communities   at issue in this matter. We recognize that WTGITV is a station that may have a limited audience.   However, we must give some weight to the fact that the station also has no reported audience in the   /counties where the cable communities are located and has no history of carriage on Service's systems   despite ten years of operation. The record also shows that WTGITV also is not carried on cable systems  SJ -  serving other nearby communities. J  yO-  ԍWTGITV apparently is carried on cable systems in lower Berks County, Pennsylvania, more than thirty miles from and not adjacent to Service's cable system. It should also be noted that WTGITV is not listed in any local TV   jlistings for principal communities served by Service. Moreover, WTGITV has provided no information   that any of its income is attributable to the communities at issue. Wilmington, Delaware, WTGITV's   city of license, and Woodstown, New Jersey, WTGITV's transmitter location, are quite distant, more than   70 miles, from the relevant cable communities. The distance involved attenuates any local ties the station   may have to the cable communities and most likely contributes to the station's lack of viewership in the Communities.  S -  24.` ` Also, Service's carriage of other local television stations provides support for the action   requested. Where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights in certain   communities within its ADI, and it is clear that the station is not providing local service to those   communities, the issue of local coverage by other stations becomes a factor to which we give greater   weight than in cases where a station is seeking to add communities. In this case there are several  SB-  jtelevision stations carried by Service's systemA!BF {O(-ԍSee note 10, above.A that have a closer nexus to the Communities and provide   /more focused local programming than WTGITV. We reject Paxson's argument that carriage of other   local stations should not be considered in evaluating a cable operator's deletion request. Section  S-  614(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) specifically provides that, in considering requests to either include or exclude   communities from a station's television market, the Commission shall take into account factors such as  S|-  the carriage of other local stations by a cable operator serving the communities at issue.U"| {O!-ԍSee, 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(l)(C)(ii)(I).U Paxson insists   that such reasoning is inconsistent with a prior deletion case in which we held that "we do not believe the   enhancement criterion should be used by a cable operator to bolster its request to delete communities from   a station's television market whenever it could show that other stations in the market serve the cable  S-  !communities."g#j  {O&-ԍNationwide Communications, Inc. 10 FCC Rcd at 13053 n.22.g In using such language, we were asserting that a cable operator seeking to delete" #,_(_(II="   [communities from a station's market could not simply point to the fact that it carried other local stations   and, by that fact alone, satisfy its burden of proof. In other words, a cable operator's deletion request will   knot automatically be granted whenever it can show carriage of other local stations. Rather, carriage of   other local stations may be used as an enhancement factor to support a cable operator's deletion request   when other evidence shows the communities at issue to be outside of the station's market. In the present   ycase, Service carries numerous network affiliated and independent stations licensed to communities in the   Philadelphia ADI, including stations from Scranton, WilkesBarre, and Reading, which provide coverage   Mof local news and events, and other evidence shows the Communities served by Service to be outside WTGITV's market.  Sp-  25.` ` Paxson argues that there is a strong presumption of carriage throughout a station's ADI.   And Paxson takes the position that the presumption should be given full effect in this case. This argument   disregards the information provided for the record as well as the four statutory factors set forth in the   market modification provisions. For instance, as noted above, Paxson claims the availability of other local   stations in the market should not be considered in this case. In addition, Paxson discounts as insignificant   to our decision the station's lack of historical carriage, the station's lack of technical coverage of the   Communities, and the station's lack of viewership, as well as the distance of the station from the   Communities. Section 614(h)(1)(C), however, specifically and unambiguously directs the Commission,   .in considering requests for market modification, to afford particular attention to the value of localism by   taking each of these factors into account. We have previously observed that the must carry rules "were   not intended to transform an otherwise local station into a regional super station that must be  S-  automatically carried in every single community in an ADI ... ."$ {O -ԍSee Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 6541 (CSB 1996) at  25. Paxson contends the only circumstance   in which deletion of a local station would enhance localism is where a cable system is unable, in the   absence of deletion, to carry the signal of another station that is outside of the ADI market and that   kprovides demonstrably more local service. We find these interpretations of Section 614(h) and of the   0Commission's implementing regulations too restrictive and without a sufficient basis in either the   legislative history or the wording of the statute. The statute, on its face, does not limit market deletion   requests only to those situations where an outofthemarket station is more deserving of carriage than an   inmarket station. There is also no language in the legislative history of Section 614(h) directly supporting   Paxson's viewpoint, nor is there any in the Commission's rules. To the contrary, Paxson ignores   Congress' directive allowing either broadcasters or cable operators to ask for market modifications so that  S(-  a station's ADI could better reflect the economic market at hand.`%(Z yO"-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 66 at 97 (1992).` In summary, we reject Paxson's   .arguments that amount to a wholesale attack on the statutory market modification provisions of Section 614 of the Communications Act.  S-  26.` ` Changes in station markets may be sought and granted by the Commission "to better  S`-  effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements.=&` yO#-ԍ47 U.S.C. 534(h).= The ADI market change process   incorporated into the Communications Act, however, is not intended to be a process whereby cable   operators may seek relief from the mandatory signal carriage obligations apart from the question of   whether a change in the market area involved is warranted. When viewed against this backdrop, and   considering all of the relevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that the operator's deletion"! z&,_(_(IIU#"   petition appears to be a legitimate request to redraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous with market   realities. Service's petition reflects no intention to skirt signal carriage responsibilities under the   Communications Act and the Commission's Rules, nor does it evidence a pattern of discriminatory   kconduct against the station subject to deletion. Based on the geography and the statutory factors, we   believe that the Communities in question are sufficiently removed from WTGITV that they ought not be   deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage purposes. The evidence before us distinguishes   the various Communities served by Service from WTGITV's market and persuades us that the action   requested would "better effectuate the purposes" of Section 614. We believe Congress enacted Section   614(h) with a deletion provision so that market anomalies such as this one could be properly rectified through the special relief process.  SH - B. WGTWTV, Burlington, New Jersey  S -  27.` ` When tested under the four statutory factors, the record before us requires that we reach   a different result with respect to WGTWTV, and we decline to delete the Communities served by Service   from the market of WGTWTV. First, WGTWTV, after recent modification of facilities, extends a   predicted Grade B signal contour to a large portion of the Communities served by Service, and WGTW  lTV is currently being carried on Service's cable system. Although the record contains no evidence   /regarding the extent of WGTWTV viewing in the Communities, carriage of WGTWTV on Service's   systems assures exposure to viewers there, and exclusion of the Communities from the station's market would be disruptive of whatever level of viewing may now exist.  S-  28.` ` The fact that the station is currently being carried on Service's cable systems serving the   Communities is probative and, while not decisional, will be taken into consideration in the overall context   of the requested market modification. We also consider the fact that Burlington, New Jersey, WGTW  =TV's city of license, is approximately 83 miles from the Kutztown portion of Service's cable system, 68   miles from the Allentown portion, 65 miles from the Bethlehem portion, 67 miles from the Easton portion,   .and 84 miles from the Bangor portion, and separated from those communities by the Pennsylvania state   line. However, WGTWTV does provide a predicted Grade B signal contour to portions of the   Communities. Although not conclusive of themselves, in other circumstances these factors may tend to   yindicate that the Communities served by Service may be too distant to be a part of WGTWTV's market.  S-  29.` ` However, we must consider not only whether the cable system carries the station that is   jthe subject of the market modification petition, but also whether "other stations located in the same area,  S-  =have been historically carried on the cable system ...."U' {O-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I).U As noted above, WGTWTV transmits from an   antenna "farm" in the Roxborough section of Philadelphia that is shared by other television stations   licensed to Philadelphia. Also, WGTWTV's studio is located in Philadelphia, and Burlington, New   Jersey, WGTWTV's city of license, is on the Delaware River and in the immediate Philadelphia metropolitan area.  S!-  30.` ` Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to include or   exclude particular communities from a television station's market for the purpose of ensuring that a   .television station is carried in the areas which it serves and which form its economic market. In addition   to the fact that WGTWTV is carried on the cable system in question, the cable system also carries the   other stations licensed to Philadelphia, in which WGTWTV's transmitter and studio are located. WGTW" % Z',_(_(II&"ԫ  .TV's city of license, Burlington, New Jersey is on the Delaware River and in the immediate Philadelphia   Lmetropolitan area. The carriage of the other stations licensed to Philadelphia, along with WGTWTV, in   the Communities provides strong evidence that the Communities should be considered part of the market   of all stations in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The requested exclusion of the Communities from   WGTWTV's market would allow Service to discriminate among the several stations licensed to the  S8-  Philadelphia metropolitan area, despite a Congressional mandate to preclude such discrimination.T(Z8 {O-  ԍSee House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act   of 1992, H.R. Rep. No. 102628, at 98. (Congress sought to prevent cable operators from discriminating "among several stations licensed to the same community.")T Being   excluded from the Communities would have the effect of precluding WGTWTV from any opportunity   to compete for viewers and advertising revenues with the other Philadelphia metropolitan area stations in   the portion of the Philadelphia served by Service. Such exclusion would compound any advantage the other Philadelphia stations carried on Service's system have in that portion of the Philadelphia ADI.  SH -  $31.` ` We have carefully considered each statutory factor in the context of the circumstances  S -  presented here._)  {O-  ԍWe are under no obligation to give particular weight to any particular one of the several statutory factors. See  {Ot-  Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 151, 175 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Accord Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78   F.3d 620, 633634 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (When Congress directs an agency to consider certain factors, the agency simply   "must reach an express and considered conclusion about the bearing of a factor, but is not required to give any specific weight to it.")_ We believe the carriage of the other Philadelphia metropolitan area stations on Service's   cable system in this case is an overriding factor in this case, because it impacts heavily on the ability of   WGTWTV to reach viewers in a portion of the Philadelphia ADI that the other Philadelphia stations are   able to reach because of their carriage on Service's cable system. Also, as noted before, WGTWTV   places a predicted Grade B signal over a large portion of the Communities, and since Service currently   carries WGTWTV on its cable system, exclusion of the Communities from WGTWTV's market will   result in disruption of WGTWTV's programming currently available to residents of the Communities   through Service's cable system. We find that Service failed to demonstrate that the requested exclusion   of the Communities served by its cable system from WGTWTV's television market will better effectuate the purposes of the mustcarry statutory provisions.  #e?   Sh- #e? $ MUSTCARRY COMPLAINT ă  S-  #32.` ` Section 614 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules permit   stations to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within their market. The mustcarry   /rules seek to ensure cable carriage of local stations in order to strengthen their economic viability and   thereby allow for greater diversity in programming. However, the prerequisite for asserting mustcarry  Sx-  \rights with respect to a particular cable system is that the operator serve communities in the station's  SR-  market or ADI. Paxson filed a mustcarry complaint seeking carriage on Service's cable system which   serves the Communities identified in footnote 1 above. These Communities have been deleted from  S-  =WTGITV's market by this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Because we have granted the petition to   delete these communities from WTGITV's market, the associated complaint filed by Paxson for mandatory carriage of WTGITV is rendered moot. "),_(_(II"Ԍ S- #e? 8 #e? 1' ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S-  33.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614(h) of the Communications Act   of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534(h), and Section 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59,  S`-  = #e? 8 #e? that the petition for special relief filed on beha lf of Service Electric Cable TV, Inc. File No. CSR5011A  S8-  :  IS GRANTED IN PART with respect to television station WTGITV, and IS DENIED IN PART respect to television station WGTWTV.  S-  34.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the MustCarry Complaint filed on April 21, 1997,   by Paxson Philadelphia License, Inc., licensee of television station WTGITV in File No. CSR4999M  Sp- IS DISMISSED .  S -  _35.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. ` ` hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William H. Johnson  S-` ` hh,Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau "),_(_(II"  S-D APPENDIX A  S- List of Communities Served by Service Electric Cable TV, Inc. ă  S`-  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: