WPC; 2MB%RK Z3|X Times 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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\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~'^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~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%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>lBBn72E8KS0K2 K43"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>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\"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%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNStates is allocated to a market based on which homemarket stations receive a preponderance of total   viewing hours in the county. For purposes of this calculation, both overtheair and cable television  S`-viewing are included.$`" 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  S-areas served by the cable system or systems in such community. 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"`,_(_(II"Ԍlosing 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.  S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Satellite points to multiple decisions in which the Cable Bureau granted exclusion of WWFDTVK yOh-ԍAnd WEYS, another Key West station.K in   situations where the individual cable communities involved were even closer to Key West than the  S-  communities herein.X {O-  LԍSee e.g., Rifkin/Narragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd 21090 (1996); and  {Or-Dynamic Cablevision of Florida Ltd., et al., 11 FCC Rcd 9880 (1996), among others. In conclusion, Cable Satellite requests that it be relieved of its obligation to carry WWFDTV on its system.  S8-  %10.` ` In opposition, WWFDTV states that pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer  S-  Protection and Competition Act of 1992S yOd -ԍPub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).S and the Commission's Report and Order, supra, it is entitled   to assert mandatory carriage rights on every cable system located within the Miami ADI. Also, Section   614 of the Act creates an affirmative duty for every cable operator in an ADI to carry the signals of the   local commercial television stations in its market. Stations such as WWFDTV, it continues, represent   precisely the kind of station Congress intended to have must carry rights. While modification of ADI   markets are allowed, WWFDTV argues that there is a heavy burden of proof on petitioners who move   zto exclude communities from a station's market. In the instant case, WWFDTV maintains that Cable   Satellite has not met this burden. WWFDTV states that it provides a valuable program service which   caters specifically to the communities served by Cable Satellite. It points out programming such as "This   =Morning in South Florida," which covers events in Dade County as well as the entire ADI, and coverage  S -  of local news, weather and sports (professional, college and high school).X D yOf-  ԍWWFDTV states that it also broadcasts a one hour sports program, "Sportslook," which covers local sports   and celebrities and it provides local radar weather information. It indicates that it has installed automated weather source centers not only in Key West but in Homestead, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami's South Beach.  WWFDTV maintains that   Cable Satellite's attempts to limit must carry rights to specific coverage areas is misplaced given that   [Congress adopted an economic market approach, as designated by the ADI, rather than using distance or   Grade B coverage to determine carriage rights. In addition, WWFDTV argues that its station can scarcely   have ratings or carriage history since it only began service in May, 1996. In any event, it maintains, the   \Commission has held that low ratings and lack of historic carriage are of limited relevance in petitions   zseeking exclusion. While WWFDTV admits that it does not provide Grade B service to the system's   community, it states that the Commission has specified that Grade B contours are "not to be used as any  SB-  \absolute measure of the scope of a station's market."kBd  {OF-ԍSee Chronicle Publishing, 10 FCC Rcd 9474, 9483 n. 27 (1995).k Further, the carriage of other local stations by   Cable Satellite does not lessen the community's need of WWFDTV's programming or obviate Cable  S-  Satellite's statutory obligations.\  {O"-ԍSee Time Warner Cable, 11 FCC Rcd 8047 (1996).\ Finally, WWFDTV maintains that geographical remoteness is not a   recognized basis for modification and is an argument that is undercut by the fact that WWFDTV is   Kcurrently carried on cable systems throughout the ADI with communities which are equally distant to those   kof Cable Satellite's system. WWFDTV concludes, therefore, that Cable Satellite's petition should be denied. "* ,_(_(II"Ԍ S-  11.` ` In reply, Cable Satellite states that WWFDTV offers little evidence to counter its   [petition's arguments. Cable Satellite states that WWFDTV ignores the legislative history with regard to   the market modification provisions which "reflect a recognition that . . . a community within a station's  S-  MADI may be so far removed from the station that it cannot be deemed part of the station's market."Z yO-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).Z   Cable Satellite states that the Commission has specifically rejected WWFDTV's argument that requires   \a petitioner to show that a "local" station would have to be dropped if the market modification is not  S-  \granted.X {O -ԍSee Dynamic Cablevision of Florida, Ltd., et al., DA 961291, para. 2022, (released August 20, 1996). Cable Satellite restates that WWFDTV fares poorly under the four statutory criteria, the   \primary reason being that the station fails to establish any nexus with the communities served by the   [system. Cable Satellite states that the programming examples offered by WWFDTV to establish a local   nexus are general in nature and lack details to indicate that they specifically target Cable Satellite's system   communities. Indeed, it maintains, WWFDTV's arguments in this regard only serve to highlight its   misunderstanding of the underlying goals of the must carry rules where the relevant question is not   whether programming is of general interest, but whether it covers local matters. Cable Satellite points out  S -  jthat in Time Warner Cable,K  yO-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, Cable Satellite concludes that WWFDTV's carriage on other cable systems within the ADI says nothing about the station's coverage of the specific communities herein.  SZ-  S2-  MUST CARRY ARGUMENTS ă  S-  n12.` ` WWFDTV's must carry complaint requests that the Commission order the Cable Satellite   system to carry its signal for the following reasons: a) Its complaint was timely filed. WWFDTV states   that it requested carriage on Cable Satellite's cable system by letter dated July 1, 1997. Cable Satellite   failed to respond to this letter and WWFDTV states that it filed its complaint within 60 days of Cable  SB-  >Satellite's failure to respond.?Bz yO\-ԍ76.7(c)(4)(iii)(B).? b) As a commercial television station operating within the same ADI   market as Cable Satellite's system, WWFDTV is entitled to carriage pursuant to Section 614 of the  S-  Communications Act and the Commission's Rules.{  {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 Cable Satellite'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.  S-  `13.` ` In its opposition, Cable Satellite states that although as early as 1996 it discussed with   LWWFDTV the possibility of the station's carriage, it advised WWFDTV at the time that its signal was",_(_(IIL"  S-  not available at the system's headend. yOh-  ԍCable Satellite states that at that time WWFDTV mentioned the existence of a fiber line connection to the area, but it was unable to identify the location of that line. Despite this fact, Cable Satellite states that WWFDTV requested   carriage on its system in a letter dated September 27, 1996. In a response dated October 3, 1996, Cable   .Satellite states that it informed WWFDTV that while it was impossible to receive the station's signal at   kthe headend, it was willing for its system engineer to discuss whether carriage of the station would be   possible in the future. Other than an acknowledgement via telephone by WWFDTV to the cable system's   engineer that the station's signal was not available at the system headend, Cable Satellite indicates that   no further action took place until WWFDTV submitted a second, redundant, request for carriage on   [July1, 1997. Cable Satellite states that on August 26, 1997, it conducted a signal strength survey which  S-  yielded no perceptible signal from WWFDTV at the cable system's headend.  yO -  ԍCable Satellite states it took four readings over a twohour period using a Hewlett Packard Model 8591C Cable TV Analyzer. Moreover, Cable Satellite   Aargues that WWFDTV's claim that its signal is available via fiber optic cable is false and a   =misrepresentation of the facts. Indeed, Cable Satellite states that there is no fiber optic or other medium by which it can receive WWFDTV's signal at its headend.  S -  14.` ` Cable Satellite argues further that WWFDTV's complaint is untimely. Since the   zcircumstances regarding receipt of WWFDTV's signal did not change from the receipt of the station's   first must carry request in September 1996, Cable Satellite maintains that WWFDTV would only have   been entitled to file a must carry complaint within sixty days of the original October 3, 1996 refusal of   carriage. Cable Satellite states that WWFDTV cannot contrive to create a new triggering date for the   Mfiling of a complaint simply by submitting a second request for carriage to the cable system. Finally,   Cable Satellite argues that WWFDTV showed bad faith in filing its complaint since it was aware that the   >Commission had specifically deleted WWFDTV from the Miamiarea ADI on at least two previous  S-  occasionsx {O-  ԍSee Rifkin/Narragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership, supra, and Continental Cablevision of  {O-Jacksonville, Inc. et al., DA 961844 (released November 12, 1996). due to the recognition that WWFDTV failed to satisfy any of the four factors for inclusion in the market. As a result, Cable Satellite maintains that WWFDTV's complaint should be dismissed.  S@-  n15.` ` In reply, WWFDTV states that Cable Satellite's premise that WWFDTV fails to provide   a good quality signal and that its complaint is untimely are both incorrect. WWFDTV points out that   while it admits that, at this time, it does not provide a good quality signal to Cable Satellite's principal   headend, it is fully capable of doing so. It indicates that it currently provides a good quality signal, via   fiber optic cable, to a nearby TCI cable system and is fully prepared to extend that cable to include Cable   Satellite's system. WWFDTV states that the use of fiber optic cable has been specifically authorized  SP-  by the Commission for the purposes of delivery of a good quality signal to cable headends.P {O"-  ԍSee West Valley Cablevision Industries, Inc., DA 971754 (released August 19, 1997) at para. 12; and  {O#-Cablevision Systems Corp.,  11 FCC Rcd 2362 (1995). WWFDTV   argues that its commitment to provide and install the necessary equipment to deliver a good quality signal   to Cable Satellite's headend full satisfies its criteria for carriage. With regard to the timeliness of its   -complaint, WWFDTV states that its September 27, 1996 was merely an election of must carry status over   that of retransmission consent prior to the October 1, 1996 deadline and was not a request for carriage. "0 ,_(_(II"   Moreover, as Cable Satellite's October 3rd letter invited further negotiations, WWFDTV argues that it cannot be construed as an outright denial of carriage.  S-  o16.` ` In a separate, related pleading, Cable Satellite alleges that WWFDTV violated Sections   1.17 and 76.7 of the Rules in connection with the filing of its must carry complaint and requests that a   forfeiture be issued against the station. Cable Satellite points that in its August 20, 1997 must carry   \complaint, WWFDTV states that it ". . . delivers a good quality signal to [Cable Satellite's] principal   headend via fiber optic cable which meets or supersedes the Commission's signal strength requirement."   However, in a subsequent September 2, 1997 letter from WWFDTV's counsel to the cable system, Cable   Satellite indicates that it was advised that ". . . Station WWFDTV . . . intends to deliver a broadcast   quality signal at the [Cable Satellite] headend by fiber on or before November 1, 1997." Cable Satellite   argues that not only does the September 2nd statement verify the obviously false allegation made in   [WWFDTV's complaint, but WWFDTV's failure to file this letter as a supplement to its complaint was   a "willful material omission" in violation of Sections 1.17 of the Commission's Rules and Section   [312(a)(4) of the Act. Moreover, this omission violated Section 76.7 of the Rules which requires that the   Mpetitioner ". . . is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of all information in such   ?document." As a result, Cable Satellite maintains that the Commission should institute forfeiture   proceedings against WWFDTV, including a revocation of its construction permit and/or any license  S0-granted pursuant thereto." 0 yO-  <ԍCable Satellite points out that Section 312(a)(4) of the Act provides that the Commission may revoke any   station license or construction permit "For willful or repeated violation of, or willful or repeated failure to observe,   any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission. . . ." The systems states that WWFDTV has applied for a license on Form 302TV to cover its construction permit, but that license has not yet been granted."  S-@ DISCUSSION ă  S-  C17.` ` We will grant Cable Satellite'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@ yO-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, at 9798.D  S-  `18.` ` 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  S-  ywhich they service and which form their economic market."Z@ yO-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).Z Changes may be sought and granted by the  Sx-  Commission "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements.= x 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 Cable   Satellite's deletion petition appears to be a legitimate request to redraw ADI boundaries to make them   /congruous with market realities. Cable Satellite's actions do not reflect an intention to skirt its signal"` ,_(_(II"   carriage responsibilities under the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's Rules, nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory conduct against the station.  S-  19.` ` 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 data would simply exclude Cable Satellite's   community from WWFDTV's market. However, even taking into account the difficulties of applying   0these factors to new stations and those with specialized formats, there is no supporting evidence   demonstrating that Cable Satellite's communities warrant inclusion. The fact that a station is new or of   jspecialized 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   Kstatutory factors (which demonstrate only limited connections between the cable communities and WWFD  !TV), 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.  SX-  20.` ` WWFDTV, which signed ontheair in 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 South Miami and surrounding   Dade County, the cable communities that Cable Satellite has requested be deleted. These communities   are outside of WWFDTV's Grade B contour. The communities served by Cable Satellite's system are   also more than 125 miles outside of WWFDTV'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 instant communities. It is also generally undisputed that the South Miami area receives   an abundance of local news, sports, and public affairs broadcasts from other closer stations. Moreover,   although WWFDTV claims carriage in several cable systems throughout the ADI with communities   farther in distance than South Miami, 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(-  S21.` ` Nevertheless, we are aware that as a newer station, WWFDTV has not had the   opportunity to build a record of historical carriage. While some stations fail the historic carriage criteria   ]for specific reasons which do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to the geography of the market   involved, we cannot overlook the fact that, in this instance, geographic distance plays a major role. As   =such, the evidence relating to this statutory factor does weigh in favor of excluding Cable Satellite's cable   system community from WWFDTV's market but is not outcome determinative by itself. With regard   to viewership, we recognize that again, as a newer station, WWFDTV has not had as much time as other   stations to build an audience. Indeed, stations can take up to three years to establish their viewing   patterns. Congress could not have intended for such stations to have cable communities deleted from their   market solely because their audience shares are not as significant as those of several other stations with  S"-  0which they compete.!" 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. "H$ !,_(_(II%"Ԍ S-  B22.` ` Given the evidence as to the statutory factors, the obvious lack of evidence concerning   technical 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 Cable Satellite's system from the WWFDTV market for mandatory carriage purposes.  S-  ~23.` ` With regard to the issue of the timeliness of WWFDTV's must carry complaint, we do   {not agree with Cable Satellite that the station's September 27, 1996 letter constituted a request for   [carriage. Upon review it appears to be a letter notifying Cable Satellite of WWFDTV's election of must  S-  carry status in lieu of retransmission consent, pursuant to Section 76.64(f)(2) of the Commission's Rules."  yO -  ZԍIn view of the fact that grant of Cable Satellite's modification request will result in the dismissal of WWFD  TV's must carry complaint against the system, we feel no consider further the need to issue a forfeiture against   WWFDTV at this time for its alleged violations of Sections 1.17 and 76.7 of the Rules. At worst these these were technical failures that were not prejudicial.  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 (CSR5121A) filed on behalf of Cable Satellite of South Miami, Inc. IS GRANTED.  S0-  25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that WWFDTV's complaint filed August 20, 1997, (CSR S-5080M) 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