WPCO 2MB%RK<3|X Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"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 2M BR;52ai:\`ti\9`65maH" rB1 - MM 2 KZ N 3|X"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<"dxtldpxxdHP4M (PCL); Rm. 703_1; LPT2onal)HL4MPCAD.PRSX\  P6G;\U $oP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2< XV v pTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italicy.X80,X\  P6G;P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xy.\80,T\4  pG;d|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2kk$v4a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 24tP  BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2N f  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2P))a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2+9a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   24f(a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2%3f e$%Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X&^    !"#$%h 02? K7|6 K; Kf="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\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&"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~'^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^? : f ADOy.X80,X\  P6G;P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xy.\80,T\4  pG;\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XXW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&XP:% ,J:\  P6G;JP8wC;,<Xw PE37XP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L yO- X   P S- #Xj\  P6G;9XP# #&a\  P6G;&P#Federal Communications Commission`}(#<DA 972652 ă  yxdddy PՊvK Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO}"Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S -#&a\  P6G;&P#In re:` `  hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  S-Gulf & Pacific Communications L.P.hh,V)pplppCSR5101A ` `  hh,V)  S-For Modification of the MiamiFt.hh,V)pp  SX-Lauderdale, Florida ADIhh,V) ` `  hh,V)  S -Complaint of Hispanic Keys Broad hh,V)ppCSR5085M  S -casting Corp.` `  hh,V)   xx- X(#(# ` `  hh,V)  S -Request for Carriage  hh,V)  S-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER lU  S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:States is allocated to a market based on which homemarket stations receive a preponderance of total" $,**88%"   viewing hours in the county. For purposes of this calculation, both overtheair and cable television  S-viewing are included.$3 yO@-  KԍBecause of the topography involved, certain counties are divided into more than one sampling unit. Also, in   certain circumstances, a station may have its home county assigned to an ADI even though it receives less than a  {O-  preponderance of the audience in that county. For a more complete description of how counties are allocated, see  {O-Arbitron's Description of Methodology.   S-  ~3. ` ` Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in market areas. Section 614(h)(1)(C) provides that the Commission may: with respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section. In considering such requests, the Act provides that: the Commission shall afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as (I) whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; (II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; (III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the  Sx-areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.x3 yO-ԍCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 614(h)(1)(C)(ii), 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii).  S(-4. ` ` The legislative history of this provision indicates that: where the presumption in favor of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers losing access to local stations because they are outside the ADI in which a local cable system operates, the FCC may make an adjustment to include or exclude particular communities from a television station's market consistent with Congress' objective to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas in which they serve and which form their economic market. " D,p(p(88e""Ԍ S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:out that the in Time Warner Cable,K 3 yOj-ԍDA 971009 (released May 13, 1997).K the Commission found that anecdotal evidence of programming   insufficient to satisfy the local coverage factor in situations where the station otherwise failed to meet any   of the other statutory factors. Finally, Gulf & Pacific concludes that WWFDTV's carriage on other cable systems within the ADI says nothing about the station's coverage of the specific community herein.  SZ-  S2-  MUST CARRY ARGUMENTS ă  S-  3 12. ` ` In the complaint filed by WWFDTV, it requests the Commission to order the Gulf &   Pacific system to carry its signal for the following reasons: a) Its complaint was timely filed. WWFD  TV states that it requested carriage on Gulf & Pacific's cable system by letter dated July 1, 1997. Gulf   & Pacific failed to respond to this letter and WWFDTV states that it filed its complaints within 60 days  SB-  [of Gulf & Pacific's failure to respond.?Bb 3 yOD-ԍ76.7(c)(4)(iii)(B).? b) As a commercial television station operating within the same   yADI market as Gulf & Pacific's system, WWFDTV is entitled to carriage pursuant to Section 614 of the  S-  Communications Act and the Commission's Rules.{ 3 {O"-ԍSee Report and Order in MM Docket No. 92259, 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 297274 (1993).{ c) WWFDTV has fully complied with all of the   requirements for mandatory carriage of its signal on the system Gulf & Pacific's system is devoting   less than onethird of its channel capacities to mandatory signal carriage, WWFDTV will deliver a good   [quality signal to the cable system's principal headend via fiber optic cable, and no other currentlycarried television stations substantially duplicates its programming. "* ,p(p(88"Ԍ S-   13. ` ` In its opposition, Gulf & Pacific incorporates by reference the arguments raised in its   market modification request and argues that the complaint herein cannot be resolved until such request   is resolved. It states, however, that should its modification request be denied, it will fully comply with   its must carry obligations in this regard assuming that WWFDTV provides a signal of good quality to its principal headend.  S-  ` 14. ` ` In reply, WWFDTV states that it is committed to providing Gulf & Pacific a signal of   good quality using specialized equipment at the station's expense. Therefore, it has fully satisfied the criteria for carriage.  Sp-@ DISCUSSION ă  S -  R15. ` ` We will grant Gulf & Pacific's modification request. Based on geography and other   relevant information, we believe that the cable system herein is sufficiently removed from WWFDTV  S -that its community ought not be deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage purposes.D 3 yO8-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, at 9798.D  S -  `16. ` ` As an initial matter, we note that, according to the legislative history of the 1992 Cable   \Act, the use of ADI market areas is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas  S0-  which they service and which form their economic market."Z0X3 yO(-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).Z Changes may be sought and granted by the  S-  Commission "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements.=3 yO-ԍ47 U.S.C. 534(h).= The 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   0question 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 Gulf &   /Pacific's deletion petition appears to be a legitimate request to redraw ADI boundaries to make them   >congruous with market realities. Gulf & Pacific's actions do not reflect an intention to skirt its signal  S-  carriage responsibilities under the 1992 Cable Actx3 yO-  ,ԍAs noted in paragraph 13 above, Jones has stated that it will comply with the mandatory carriage request from WWFDTV should its petition be denied. and the Commission's Rules, nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory conduct against the station.  Sx-  }17. ` ` We now turn to the market modification analysis. At the outset, we note that WWFDTV   has no history of carriage in the cable community in question (factor I), has virtually no overtheair   zaudience in the cable community (factor IV), and fails to provide the cable community with service as   measured by its Grade A or Grade B service contours (factor II). Given the statutory directive, weight   kmust be given to these factors, but that must be done bearing in mind that the objective of the Section   j614(h) process is to "better effectuate the purposes" of the broadcast signal carriage scheme. Thus, with   respect to the question of historical carriage patterns, attention must be paid to the circumstances from   which such patterns developed such as here. Some stations have not had the opportunity to build a record   of historical carriage for specific reasons that do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to the geography"8,p(p(88 "   0of the market involved. Thus, the historical carriage factor to the extent such lack of carriage is   reflective of factors outside of the shape of the market is not by itself controlling in these circumstances   because such an implementation of the 1992 Cable Act would, in effect, prevent weaker stations, that   cable systems had previously declined to carry, from ever obtaining carriage rights. As such, the evidence   relating to this statutory factor does weigh in favor of excluding Gulf & Pacific's cable system community from WWFDTV's market but is not outcome determinative by itself.  S-  #18. ` ` With regard to viewership, we recognize that, as a newer station, WWFDTV has not had   kas much time as other stations to build an audience. As noted in paragraph 5 above, viewing patterns   and/or significantly viewed surveys to be relied upon in ADI requests are ideally to be conducted on a   communitybycommunity basis. The methodology inherent in such surveys is considerably stricter and   a better indication of actual viewing patterns in individual communities. In any case, even when we   accept countywide surveys, it should be taken into account that stations can take up to three years to   lestablish their viewing patterns. Congress could not have intended for such stations to have cable   jcommunities deleted from their market solely because their audience shares are not as significant as those  S -  of several other stations with which they compete. 3 yO-  ԍFor instance, since WWFDTV went ontheair in May 1996, it could use data through May 1999 to establish significantlyviewed status in particular counties. If this were the case, the 1992 Cable Act would have   {designated a ratings mechanism, rather than ADIs, as the primary determinant for broadcast signal carriage.  S-  19. ` ` On the other hand, a station's local service to cable communities is one of the relevant   Lfactors to consider in this particular case that is not influenced by the type or age of the station involved   \or historical carriage. Service may be measured through geographic means: by examining the distance   \between the station and the cable communities subject to the deletion request and taking into account   natural phenomena such as waterways, mountains and valleys which tend to separate communities. A   >station's broadcast of local programming, which has a distinct nexus to the cable communities, is also   evidence of local service. Finally, a station's Grade A or Grade B contour coverage is an additional   @indicator of local service and we will weigh the presence or absence of such technical coverage  S-accordingly.W 3 yO-  ԍAs a general matter, Grade B coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure of  {OP-  a station's natural economic market. See Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd at 2977. See also  {O-  Amendment of Section 76.51 (OrlandoDaytona BeachMelbourne, and Cocoa, Florida), 102 FCC 2d at 1070 ("We   Lbelieve that television stations actually do or logically can rely on the area within their Grade B contours for economic support.").W  Sx-  220. ` ` The availability of other broadcasters in the market is another factor to consider in market   jdeletion cases such as this one. 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 which we will give  S-  greater weight than in cases where a party is seeking to add communities."3 {OL%-  jԍAccord, Petition of Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 8625 (1995) (taking into account the proximity of   television stations licensed to Hagerstown, MD and surrounding communities in granting the operator's request to   ydelete Arlington, VA station WTMW from the Washington, DC ADI with regard to its cable systems serving Martinsburg, WV and Chambersburg, PA). Here, the Miami affiliates," ,p(p(88"   which have a closer economic nexus and case a City Grade signal over the cable communities, provide   subscribers residing in the cable community herein with targeted local newscasts and public affairs programming.  S`-  21. ` ` Considering the above, the task in this proceeding is how to reflect the statutory factors   =in our decision while at the same time recognizing the difficulties of applying these factors to stations of   recent origin or more specialized formats. A decision based strictly on the four statutory modification   factors historical carriage, service, other stations' presence, and audience information would simply   .exclude Gulf & Pacific's community from WWFDTV's market. However, even taking into account the   difficulties of applying these factors to new stations and those with specialized formats, there is no   supporting evidence demonstrating that Gulf & Pacific's community warrants inclusion. The fact that a   [station is new or of specialized appeal does not mean that its logical market area is without limits or that   it should be exempt from the Section 614(h) market modification process. Given the difficulty of direct   reliance on the statutory factors (which demonstrate only limited connections between the cable   communities and WWFDTV), we focus here more heavily on basic geographic and technical features,   mileage and Grade B contour, that provide the best available alternative evidence of the market boundaries of the station subject to deletion here.  S0-  22. ` ` WWFDTV, which signed ontheair May 1996, now apparently broadcasts English  .language syndicated programming. The station's city of license is Key West, Florida. As a new station,   zit lacks measured audience (cable and noncable) and historic carriage in Weston, the cable community   that Gulf & Pacific has requested be deleted. This community is outside of WWFDTV's Grade B   contour. The community served by Gulf & Pacific's system is more than 135 miles outside of WWFD  TV's predicted Grade B contour. While the programming offered by WWFDTV can be considered to   be of general interest to the ADI as a whole, neither it nor the locallyproduced programming WWFDTV   cites in its opposition, can be considered to be specifically relevant to the community of Weston. It is   \also generally undisputed that Weston receives an abundance of local news, sports, and public affairs   broadcasts from other closer stations. Moreover, although WWFDTV claims carriage in several Broward  S-  yCounty cable systems with communities farther in distance than Weston,8 3 yO-ԍSee footnote 15.8 we are unable to verify either   the carriage or the specific distances involved as WWFDTV failed to provide the relevant cable communities and their locations.  S-  B23. ` ` Given the evidence as to the statutory factors, the obvious lack of evidence concerning   service to the communities in question, and the lack of specific programming service to these   Ncommunities, we conclude that it is logical and consistent with the objective of Section 614 of the   Communications Act to delete Gulf & Pacific's system from the WWFDTV market for mandatory carriage purposes. "8 X ,p(p(88 "  S-1' ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S-  O24. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934,   as 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 (CSR5101A) filed on behalf of Gulf & Pacific Communications L.P. IS GRANTED.  S-  25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that WWFDTV's complaint filed August 20, 1997, (CSR S-5085M) against the abovelisted cable system IS DISMISSED as moot.  S-  _26. ` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William H. Johnson ` `  hh,Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau