WPCc 2?BJ%<Courier3|a  #&a\  P6G;r&P#Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;PYX@Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italicr&P#2,qK ZCourierTimes New Roman"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\gFr>\t0\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;2 ^KnZ^X3|J "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$CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSSDeidra's printerDESPRINT.WRSX\  P6G;,,,&YP y.X80,QwX\  P6G;P 7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP 2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&P 7nC:,4Xn4  pG;XCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2R , v( p Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT) S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;XP##&a\  P6G;r&P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 21k@kva6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2tc q BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2   N a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2a7Right 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. ׃  29na5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2G5a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2 %3 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:.?index 2index 2+` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa,` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption-;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption.11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2B/@0DA1A2}OBendnote referenceendnote reference/44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference04#XP\  P6QXP#head1 #1'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf2$ 2`E3B4C5D6Da2Paragraph 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 2J7E8FF9GKGa6Paragraph 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~'^5>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\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\p=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\2VKJKMKPKS"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddg\\>>>\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\z=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f"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%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"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%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,2222222722222222`KVKY/]"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!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.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\J0J=.X3U&J*f9 xQ&X{,C8*X3FC*f9 xQX"5^*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888C8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82N8\\pC`pSS`*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS2\Q`Sc y.X80,QwX\  P6G;P 7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP 2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&P 7nC:,4Xn4  pG;X 2e=5,d[&e4  pG;& P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP H5!,x,5\  P6G;,P 0_=5,%]&_*f9 xr G;&X {,W80,%~UW*f9 xr G;X           X2#Xj\  P6G;XP#  (U X2 Y #&J\  P6Qr&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#)DA 99936 ă  yxdddy (#&J\  P6Qr&P##Xj\  P6G;XP#P #&a\  P6G;r&P#Before the YFederal Communications Commission  S("Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of:)  SI()ppXCSR5361A Adelphia Cablevision Associates, L.P.) ) For Modification of the ADI of) WMFP(TV), Lawrence, Massachusetts,)  S1 (G  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER x  S (X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: yO8(ԍH.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).Z     S( ` p5.` ` The Commission provided guidance in its Must Carry Order, supra, to aid decision making in these matters, as follows:    For example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission of  SR(documents listing the cable system's channel lineup (e.g., rate cards) for a period of years. To show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable community (factor 2), parties may demonstrate that the station places at least a Grade B coverage contour over the cable community or is located close to the community in terms of mileage. Coverage of news or other programming of interest to the community could be demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The final factor concerns viewing  Sd(patterns in the cable community in cable and noncable homes. Audience data clearly provide appropriate evidence about this factor. In this regard, we note that surveys such as those used to demonstrate significantly viewed status could be useful. However, since this factor requires us to evaluate viewing on a community basis for cable and noncable homes, and significantly" 0*%%II" viewed surveys typically measure viewing only in noncable households, such surveys may  S(need to be supplemented with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes.i k {O@(ԍMustCarry Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 2977 (emphasis in original).i     S( ` H6. ` ` As for deletions of communities from a station's ADI, the legislative history of this provision indicates that:  XThe provisions of [this subsection] reflect a recognition that the Commission may conclude that a community within a station's ADI may be so far removed from the station that it cannot be deemed part of the station's market. It is not the Committee's intention that these provisions be used by cable systems to manipulate their carriage obligations to avoid compliance with the objectives of this section. Further, this section is not intended to permit a cable system to discriminate among several stations licensed to the same community. Unless a cable system can point to particularized evidence that its community is not part of one station's market, it should not be permitted to single out individual stations serving the same area and request that the cable system's community be deleted from the station's television  S (mar ket.^ Z  yO(ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 9798 (1992). ^(#   xIn adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that changes requested should  xbe considered on a communitybycommunity basis rather than on a countybycounty basis and that they  xshould be treated as specific to particular stations rather than applicable in common to all stations in the  S(market.Z   {Oj(ԍMustCarry Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 2977 n.139. Z   S(^  MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENT Đx  S@( ` 7.` ` Lawrence, Massachusetts, the community of license of WMFP and Adelphia's Falmouth,  xVMassachusetts cable television system are located in the Boston ADI. Lawrence is situated northwest of  xBoston, and Falmouth is located on Cape Cod in Barnstable County, southeast of Boston. Lawrence and Falmouth are eightytwo miles apart.  Sx( ` ~8.` ` Adelphia argues that it would be contrary to the goals of Section 614 of the 1992 Cable  xfAct to afford WMFP must carry status on Adelphia's cable system serving Falmouth. With regard to  xhistoric carriage, Adelphia states that WMFP has never been carried on its cable television system. In  xaddition, Adelphia carries no other television station licensed to a community within an approximate 20  xmile radius of Lawrence. Adelphia contends that it is not singling out WMFP for noncarriage from  xamong other similarly situated stations, nor is it engaging in a pattern of discriminatory conduct against  xthe station. Furthermore, Adelphia argues that WMFP has no historical carriage on cable systems serving Barnstable County, where its Falmouth system is located. "8| 0*%%IIB"Ԍ S( ` Њ9.` ` As for local coverage, Adelphia states that Falmouth is more than 20 miles outside of the  xHWMFP's predicted Grade B contour. In addition, Adelphia notes that Lawrence, the station's city of  xLlicense, is eightytwo miles from the cable community and that this distance equals or exceeds numerous  xprior decisions where the Commission has granted cable operators' requests to delete communities from  S`( xa station's ADI.1 `2w {O( xԍPetition at 8. Adelphia cites Armstrong Utilities, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 2498 at n. 19 (1997); AR Cable Services,  {O(Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 21080 at para. 25 (1996); Time Warner Cable, 11 FCC Rcd 13149 at para. 13 (1996).1 Further, Adelphia contends that Lawrence is separated from Falmouth by two bodies  xof water, Buzzard's Bay and Boston Harbour, and that Cape Cod has an identity distinct from Boston, let  x:alone Lawrence. Adelphia states that Falmouth is located close to Rhode Island, and carries four  xtelevision stations from nearby Providence, Rhode Island, of which three are listed as "significantly  xviewed" in Barnstable County. In contrast, Adelphia states that Lawrence is located northwest of Boston,  xnear the New Hampshire border, with the City of Boston located in between the two communities.  xAdelphia concludes that the geographic facts provide evidence that no nexus exists between Lawrence and  xBFalmouth. Furthermore, Adelphia states that it was unable to identify any local programming directed at  xFalmouth, and that WMFP's weekly programming consists of general interest programming, including  xpinfomericals, home shopping and religious programming. Adelphia contends that it is not the station's  xBoverall format which fails to make a local connection with Falmouth, but rather, the station's lack of any  x>local news, sports or community interest programming geared toward Falmouth or any other specific  xcommunity which renders the station distant for ADI modification purposes. Adelphia also states that the local newspaper serving the Falmouth does not even list WMFP.  S( ` .10.` ` Moreover, when a cable operator is seeking to delete a station from its system and the  x8station is not providing local service, Adelphia asserts that the Commission attributes greater significance  S( x\to the system's carriage of local stations serving the community. $2w {O|(ԍAdelphia cites, e.g., Home Link Communications of Princeton, L.P., l997 FCC LEXIS 2930 at para. 19 (1997). Adelphia states that it carries eight  xVBoston stations, as well as four stations from Providence and a station from Vineyard Haven, located on  xnearby Martha's Vineyard, and that these stations provide substantial local programming directed towards  xFalmouth. Adelphia states that these stations broadcast a significant amount of local interest programming  x:to Falmouth residents, including local news, community affairs and sports programming. Finally,  xvAdelphia argues that WMFP has no significant viewership in Falmouth, or surrounding Barnstable  S(County.L2w yOF( xԍAdelphia submits a December 1998 ratings report from Media Strategies, Inc., which analyses WMFP's  {O( xviewership in both cable and noncable households in Barnstable County using the Nielen County Coverage Report  xFfor l998, and concludes that "WMFPTV does not have any viewing in the county ... the station's call letters are not  {O(even listed by Nielsen for this county." Petition at 14.  Sx( ` t11.` ` In its opposition, MFP asserts that Adelphia has failed to demonstrate that modification  xof WMFP's must carry market is justified. MFP contends that Adelphia has mischaracterized the station,  xin that the station's transmitter is located in Boston, and that the station serves Boston and the surrounding  xBareas. In addition, MFP argues that Adelphia currently carries seven Boston stations on its system, with  xjsimilar signal contours, and that Lawrence, the station's city of license, is part of the hyphenated Boston"0*%%II""ԫ S( xCambridgeWorcesterLawrence television market.2w {Oh( xԍSee Amendment of Section 76.51 of the Commission's Rules to Include Lawrence, Massachusetts, in the Boston {O2(CambridgeWorcester, Massachusetts Television Market, 9 FCC Rcd 2036 (1994). MFP concludes that the station competes with, and is similarly situated with the other Boston stations carried on Adelphia's system.  S( ` 12.` ` MFP contends that Adelphia is attempting to single out WMFP from the other Boston area  xstations, and that the Commission has held in the past that cable operators cannot discriminate against  xindividual broadcast stations. MFP argues that because of Adelphia's discriminatory approach, the  xCommission should not weigh the four statutory factors as it would in a matter without such  x8discrimination. In addition, MFP contends that the distance of 61 miles between downtown Boston and Falmouth is essentially the same distance as the other Boston area stations carried on the system.  Sp( ` Z13.` ` In reply, Adelphia argues that WMFP's Boston transmitter location does not transform the  xstation into a Boston television station, and that the station is licensed to Lawrence and required by the  xCommission to serve the latter community. Accordingly, Adelphia argues that the relevant distance and  xgeographic attenuation between WMFP and the cable system is between Lawrence and Falmouth, not  xbetween Boston and Falmouth. Adelphia also argues that the stations carried on the system provide a  xplethora of local news, sports and community affairs relevant to Falmouth residents, in contrast to the lack  xtof such programming on WMFP. Accordingly, Adelphia concludes that WMFP is not "similarly situated"  SX( xto the Boston stations carried on its system.9X$2w {O(ԍReply at 6.9 Additionally, Adelphia contends that it cannot be said to  xdiscriminate against the station, since the system does not carry any other station licenced to Lawrence, or to any community within a 20 mile radius of Lawrence.   S( DISCUSSION Đx  Sh( ` 14.` ` Based on the four statutory and other relevant factors, Adelphia's petition will be granted.  xAs an initial matter, we note that, according to the legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act, the use of  xjADI market areas is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they service  S( xand which form their economic market."2w yOF(ԍ#X\  P6G;QwP#H.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992). Changes may be sought and granted by the Commission "to  S( x better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements.dF2w yO(ԍ#X\  P6G;QwP#47 U.S.C. 534(h).d The ADI market change process  xincorporated into the Communications Act, however, is not intended to be a process whereby cable  xoperators may seek relief from the mandatory signal carriage obligations apart from the question of  x\whether a change in the market area involved is warranted.   When viewed against this backdrop, and  x8considering all of the relevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that the operator's deletion  xpetition appears to be a legitimate request to redraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous with market  xrealities. Adelphia's actions do not clearly reflect an intention to skirt its signal carriage responsibilities  xunder the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's rules nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory" 0*%%II"  xRconduct against the station subject to deletion. Based on the geography and the statutory factors, we  xbelieve that the Falmouth, Massachusetts system is sufficiently removed from WMFP that it ought not be  x~deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage purposes. The evidence before us, which we  xbelieve has not been sufficiently disputed by MFP, distinguishes Falmouth, Massachusetts from Lawrence,  xMassachusetts and persuades us that the action requested would "better effectuate purposes" of Section  x614 of the l992 Cable Act. We believe Congress enacted Section 614(h) with a deletion provision so that market anomalies such as this one could be properly reviewed and rectified.  S( ` 15.` ` At the outset, the evidence conclusively suggests that WMFP does not provide local  x&service to Falmouth. WMFP does not place either a Grade A or Grade B contour over the cable  Sp( xcommunity. p2w yO ( x4ԍ#X\  P6G;QwP#We have held that the local service requirement is satisfied if the station's Grade B contour covers the  {O (community. See 8 FCC Rcd at 2981. In addition, we do not believe that WMFP carries any programming of specific local  xfinterest or import for cable viewers in Falmouth to fulfill the statutory factor. The station also has no  xreported audience in Falmouth or surrounding Barnstable County and it has no history of carriage.  x.Moreover, Lawrence, Massachusetts, WMFP's community of license, is 82 miles across Buzzards Bay,  xVBoston Harbor, and the Boston metropolitan area from the relevant cable community. The distance and  x.geographic situation involved attenuates the local ties the station might have to the cable community and helps explain why the station's viewership is too low to be reported.  S0( `  16.` ` We also believe that Adelphia's carriage of other local television stations provides support  xfor the action requested. Where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights  xin certain communities within its ADI, and it is clear that the station is not providing local programming  xto those communities, the issue of local coverage by other stations becomes a factor which we will give  xNgreater weight than in cases where a party is seeking to add communities. We believe this case is  xexemplary in that there are an abundance of television stations carried by Adelphia's system which have a closer nexus to Falmouth and provide local programming, which WMFP does not.   17. Adelphia also demonstrates that WMFP has no historical carriage on the cable system in  xquestion and has no audience in the county in which the cable system is located. Because WMFP is a  x4specialized format station, these facts are not determinative, in and of themselves, of the relationship  x8between the cable community and the market of the television station, nor should their absence permit a  xcable operator to undermine the objectives of the mandatory carriage requirement. Here, however, we  xconclude that the lack of historical carriage and the dearth of audience is of evidential significance when  xlinked with other information regarding the market, lack of Grade B coverage, and the particular distances  xinvolved. In these circumstances, we cannot discount WMFP's carriage and audience as indicators of the scope of its market area.  S`( ` 18.` ` The factors specified in Section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Communications ActH`"2w yO"#(ԍ47 U.S.C.  534(h)(1)(C)(ii).H do not  xpurport to be exclusive and thus other evidence may be considered that is helpful in defining the scope  xof the markets of the stations involved. Another consideration argued to be relevant to this proceeding" 0*%%II"  xis the Commission's consideration of the scope of the BostonCambridgeWorcesterLawrence,  S( xMassachusetts market in the context of a market hyphenation rulemaking proceeding.2w {O@( xԍSee Amendment of Section 76.51 of the Commission's Rules to Include Lawrence, Massachusetts, in the Boston {O (CambridgeWorcester, Massachusetts Television Market, supra. Market  S( xBhyphenation proceedings, undertaken pursuant to Section 614(f) of the Communications Act,>$2w yOt(ԍ47 U.S.C.  534(f).> and ADI  S( x$market modification proceedings, undertaken pursuant to Section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act,H2w yO(ԍ47 U.S.C.  534(h)(1)(C)(ii).H although  xnot identical in purpose nevertheless involve some overlap of objectives and decisional criteria and the  xCommission's decision to join markets takes into consideration the economic ties between the communities  xto be hyphenated and the subject stations. The hyphenation of these communities reflects a judgment that  xstations in the respective communities are competitive. The hyphenation decision is thus suggestive  xRevidence of the belief, notwithstanding the distances between the communities, that stations from the  S( xcommunities are local to significant overlapping portions of the same market area.dD2w {O|(ԍSee, e.g. Time Warner Cable, 11 FCC Rcd at 494. d However, the  xhyphenation is not controlling in every circumstance. The "[r]edesignation of the market reflects in the  xrules the general competitive situation that in fact exists in the local area, allowing the application of the  xmore specific rules, including those relating to `area of dominant influence' changes, to be addressed from  S ( x~the perspective of a properly defined market area." 2w {On( xrԍAmendment of Section 76.51 of the Commission's Rules to Include Anaheim, California in the Los AngelesSan  {O8(BernadinoCoronaFontanaRiverside,California Television Market, 10 FCC Rcd 9298, 9299 (1995). Here, the issue is not whether stations in Lawrence  xand Boston are competitive, but whether the Lawrence station's market properly includes communities on  xthe opposite side of Boston. Thus, for present purposes, the hyphenation decision appears to add little to the market modification decision making process.  S0( `  &{9 19.` ` Given these facts, the operator's deletion petition appears to be a legitimate request to  xredraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous with market realities. We therefore grant Adelphia's petition for modification.  S(  &{9   S( &{9  1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă   S( ` 20.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934,  S( 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`( xpfor Special Relief" (CSR5361A) filed January 12, l999 by Adelphia Cablevision Associates, L.P. IS  S8(GRANTED.   S( ` <21.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321.  ` `  ,hhhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  ,h  S (` `  ,hhhWilliam H. Johnson ` `  ,hhhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau