******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a ) CSR-5387-A InterMedia Partners ) ) For Modification of the Atlanta, Georgia ) ADI ) ) Complaint of Community Television, Inc. ) CSR-5393-M against Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. ) d/b/a InterMedia Partners ) ) Request for Carriage ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 16, 1999 Released: July 20, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a InterMedia Partners ("InterMedia") filed the above- captioned petition for special relief seeking to modify the Atlanta, Georgia Area of Dominant Influence ("ADI") relative to television broadcast station WATC (Ch. 57), Atlanta, Georgia. Specifically, InterMedia requests that WATC be excluded, for purposes of the cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules, from the communities of Athens, Watkinsville, Bogart, Winterville, unincorporated areas of Clarke County, and unincorporated areas of Oconee County, Georgia. An opposition to this petition was filed on behalf of Community Television, Inc., licensee of WATC, to which InterMedia has replied. In addition, WATC has filed a must carry complaint against InterMedia for its failure to carry its signal on the Athens, Georgia cable system. An opposition to this complaint was filed on behalf of InterMedia and WATC has replied. We are consolidating these cases for processing in order to determine the signal carriage rights of WATC in the communities served by InterMedia. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues ("Must Carry Order"), commercial television broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market. A station's market for this purpose is its "area of dominant influence," or ADI, as defined by the Arbitron audience research organization. An ADI is a geographic market designation that defines each television market exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns. Essentially, each county in the United States is allocated to a market based on which home-market stations receive a preponderance of total viewing hours in the county. For purposes of this calculation, both over-the-air and cable television viewing are included. 3. Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in market areas. Section 614(h)(l)(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 1992 Cable 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 new 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 areas served by the cable system or systems in such community. 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. * * * * [This subsection] establishes certain criteria which the Commission shall consider in acting on requests to modify the geographic area in which stations have signal carriage rights. These factors are not intended to be exclusive, but may be used to demonstrate that a community is part of a particular station's market. 5. The Commission provided guidance in its Must Carry Order to aid decision making in these matters, as follows: For example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission of documents listing the cable system's channel line-up (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 demon- strated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The final factor concerns viewing 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 viewed surveys typically measure viewing only in noncable households, such surveys may need to be supplemented with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes. 6. As for deletions of communities from a station's market, the legislative history of this provision indicates that: The 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 market. 7. In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that requested changes should be considered on a community-by-community basis rather than on a county-by-county basis, and that they should be treated as specific to particular stations rather than applicable in common to all stations in the market. The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the 1992 Cable Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request. III. MODIFICATION ARGUMENTS 8. The cable communities served by InterMedia are located in Clarke and Oconee Counties, Georgia and are considered to be part of the Atlanta, Georgia ADI. Atlanta, Georgia, the city of license of WATC, is also located within the Atlanta ADI and is, on average, approximately 100 kilometers (62.1 miles) from the cable communities. 9. In support of its request, InterMedia states that the Atlanta ADI is approximately 170 miles long and 150 miles wide, covering 52 counties in three states, and is the tenth largest in population. InterMedia indicates that its Athens, Georgia cable system, with its headend located in Athens, straddles both the Atlanta, Georgia and Greenville-Spartanburg, North Carolina ADIs. It states that the six Georgia communities it serves are located along the eastern border of the market. InterMedia argues that WATC should be excluded from carriage on its system because it does not meet any of the criteria to consider it a local signal. 10. First, InterMedia states that WATC has no history of historic carriage on the Athens cable system. Moreover, InterMedia states that WATC is not carried on any neighboring cable systems. InterMedia points out that in a previous ADI decision involving the Atlanta ADI, the Cable Services Bureau ("Bureau") noted that "[w]hile carriage on nearby cable systems is not a factor specified in the statute, such carriage serves to demonstrate the belief of both the stations and systems involved that there is a market nexus between the broadcast station and the communities where the station is carried and thus provides evidence as to the scope of a station's market." InterMedia maintains that in this case the absence of such carriage demonstrates that there is no market nexus between WATC and the cable communities herein. 11. Second, InterMedia states that WATC's Grade B contour does not encompass the system communities. In addition, InterMedia indicates that WATC's transmitter is located, on average, nearly 100 kilometers (62.1 miles) from the cable communities. InterMedia points out that the Bureau has previously considered distances lower than this adequate to justify exclusion. InterMedia maintains that it is not surprising, therefore, that WATC does not provide an adequate signal to the system and does not serve the communities within the meaning of the modification criteria. 12. Third, InterMedia states that WATC's program line-up provides no evidence of any programming specifically targeted to viewers in the instant communities. Although in its demand for carriage WATC made vague references to future plans to create weekly programming relating to the Athens area, InterMedia argues that the Bureau does not credit such speculative representations. InterMedia states that in Budd Broadcasting Co., the Bureau stated that "we cannot conclude that [WGFL-TV] is a "Local Station" based upon future intentions. . . . For the purposes of determining whether a station is local to a specific market at a given point in time, our focus is on the programming being aired." Moreover, InterMedia asserts that WATC's failure to offer local programming is not mitigated by its specialized format. It states that the Bureau has stated that "[t]he fact that a station is 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." In any event, InterMedia states that its cable communities already receive ample local programming from the television stations it currently carries. 13. Fourth, InterMedia argues that although it has not commissioned an audience survey for WATC in the instant communities, there is little hope that the station will show any appreciable viewership given its lack of a Grade B signal and its carriage on nearby cable system. In addition, InterMedia indicates that WATC is not listed in the television program listings of the area's daily newspaper, the Athens Banner- Herald/Daily News, or in the local edition of TV Guide. 14. Finally, InterMedia states that in this instance, the cable communities it serves, with Athens as their cultural and economic focal point, form a distinct and separate market from that of Atlanta, to which WATC is licensed. It points out that the University of Georgia, which is located in Athens, provides a vibrant recreational and cultural scene in which the Athens Banner newspaper's circulation dwarfs that of the Atlanta- Journal-Constitution. Also, InterMedia states that not only does Rand McNally's Basic Trading Area ("BTA") system, its Ranally Metropolitan Area ("RMA") standard and its Principal Business Center ("PBC") standard all place Atlanta and Athens in separate BTAs, but the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") classification does as well. In addition, InterMedia states, the counties in which the communities are located are in a totally separate congressional district than is Atlanta and its surrounding areas. 15. In opposition, WATC states that, although it is licensed as a noncommercial educational station ("NCE"), it is not eligible to receive a community service grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and, therefore, can never assert must carry rights as a "qualified" NCE station pursuant to Section 614(1)(1)(A). Therefore, WATC states that it must rely on donations from the public to maintain operations rather than sell advertising and the audience it reaches via cable is critical to its continued viability. WATC indicates that it is currently operating at an effective radiated power ("ERP") of 1740 kw, but has a pending application for a construction permit to increase its power to 5,000 kw. Despite its lower ERP, however, WATC states that it has worked diligently in obtaining cable carriage and it is now carried on 8 cable systems and will shortly be carried on a ninth. As part of its efforts in obtaining carriage, WATC states that it requested carriage on InterMedia's system, but was denied such carriage based on a claim of inadequate signal strength. WATC maintains that InterMedia's denial was merely a pretense for the filing of its modification request and that if InterMedia had tested WATC's signal at higher than 25 feet on its headend tower, it would have received an adequate signal and been obligated to commence carriage of the station. 16. With regard to historic carriage, WATC points out that Section 614(h) of the Communications Act provides that the Bureau must consider "whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems" within the communities at issue. WATC states that in this case, InterMedia's own Exhibit D establishes that its Athens system has historically carried 7 other television stations licensed to Atlanta -- WSB, WATL, WGNX, WAGA, WTBS, WXIA and WUPA. WATC argues that not only does InterMedia carry nearly every other full-power television station licensed to Atlanta, but those stations represent the bulk of the television stations carried on the Athens system's basic tier. WATC maintains that InterMedia's carriage of its fellow Atlanta-based stations is convincing and sufficient evidence that the "natural" market of Atlanta-area stations includes Athens, Georgia and its surrounding communities. WATC states that, in refusing to grant similar market modification requests, the Bureau has repeatedly held that historical carriage evidence of a station's competitors is so compelling that it must be given "overriding" weight. Moreover, WATC indicates that, despite InterMedia's claims, it is carried on cable systems serving communities in Gwinnett and Rockdale counties and will soon commence carriage in Walton County. In any event, WATC argues that the Bureau should consider that WATC's lack of historical carriage is not only due to its specialty format and its recent on-air date, but can also be attributed to the fact that its application for a power increase has not yet been acted on due to the Commission's digital television proceedings. 17. WATC argues that Congress never intended for the Cable Act to be used by cable operators like InterMedia to deprive the public of choices in areas such as Athens which are located outside of major metropolitan areas, particularly when doing so would be discriminatory. WATC states it is not trying to assert that its market has no limits, but rather that it is simply seeking to have a co-equal right with its fellow Atlanta- based stations. WATC maintains that its lack of a Grade B signal is insignificant in this instance because the Bureau has routinely denied requests for exclusion of non-Grade B or geographically distant stations where a grant of the modification would discriminate against one station among several licensed to the same community. WATC points out that its Grade B contour falls roughly 7 miles short of the Oconee County border. However, WATC argues that given the fact that InterMedia carries 7 of WATC's competitors, a grant of the requested exclusion would result in disparate cable carriage, unfairly deny WATC to opportunity to reach viewers in the communities and allow InterMedia to discriminate among several stations licensed to Atlanta. 18. WATC asserts that its use of a translator to deliver a good quality signal to the communities is consistent with Commission policy and Congressional intent. Contrary to InterMedia's suggestion, WATC states that it is not claiming that the translator is entitled to carriage on the Athens system, but WATC itself. Moreover, WATC points out that the 61 miles separating WATC and its translator distinguishes its use from other Bureau's decisions involving translators where the separation distances were significantly greater. 19. WATC argues further that the communities requested for exclusion are not so far distant in terms of mileage. For instance, it points out that the nearest community, Bogart, is only 52 miles away from Atlanta, and the nearest unincorporated county areas in Oconee County are 46 miles distant, while the average distance of all of the communities is 57 miles. WATC states that the Bureau has previously concluded that stations and cable communities as far apart as 75 miles were nevertheless close enough to be deemed part of the station's natural market. And in cases where the Bureau found discrimination was a factor, WATC states that the distance in one case, Adelphia Cable Communications, is nearly identical at 53 miles. Moreover, in this case, WATC states that there is no state line, mountain range, national forest or other naturally occurring geographic feature separating Atlanta from the cable communities herein. 20. WATC maintains that its specialty programming provides a valuable local service to the residents of the subject cable communities. It indicates that there are nearly 200 established churches in Athens and its environs which is a direct reflection of the priority the communities' hold for religion and a Christian lifestyle. As attested to by the general manager of Athens' only Christian radio station, the audience for Christian content television programming is substantial in the communities. WATC states that its programming is directly targeted to churchgoers like those in the communities and numerous individuals from the communities and beyond have appeared on WATC's locally-produced programs. Indeed, WATC indicates that its programming is uniquely sought out by North Georgians because the station is recognized as a leader in locally-oriented religious programming. WATC states that InterMedia's claim that programming from religious station WHSG-TV, Monroe, Georgia, is the same as that aired by WATC is inaccurate. WATC states that WHSG-TV's Trinity Broadcasting Network programming is overwhelmingly nationally-based while WATC's is locally-produced. WATC maintains that, just like home shopping stations which were found to provide "an important service to viewers," it is providing a valuable local service to those members of the public who choose to worship in the privacy of their homes. 21. Rather than support its request for exclusion, WATC argues that InterMedia's reliance on the local programming it receives from other stations, particularly the Atlanta stations, only reinforces the fact that WATC serves the communities. WATC states that it is noteworthy that InterMedia makes no attempt to claim that the two stations licensed to Athens, WGTV and WNGM, provide local coverage. WATC indicates that WGTV simply retransmits statewide and national PBS network programming, while WNGM airs Video JukeBox 24 hours a day. Clearly, WATC argues, InterMedia has had to look to other stations for its local coverage arguments. However, WATC points out that InterMedia cannot rely on the programming it cites from WNEG-TV, as that station is not one "eligible to be carried by a cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section. . ." WATC states that without reliance on WNEG-TV, WGTV and WNGM, InterMedia's local coverage argument can only be based on the Atlanta-area stations it carries. 22. While WATC acknowledges that its ratings are probably not significant in the communities at issue, it maintains that these insignificant ratings do not illustrate that the cable communities are not part of WATC's market. It points out that the Bureau has acknowledged that a lack of significant ratings or established viewing patterns can often be attributed to specialized formats and how recently a station has begun broadcasting. WATC states that, as a religious station, its programming is specialized and it has been on-the- air for less than three years. 23. Finally, WATC asserts that the very political and economic statistics that InterMedia declares divides the Atlanta and Athens areas are flatly disregarded by every Atlanta-based television station seeking to attract Athens viewers and their advertising dollars. Moreover, InterMedia itself carries those stations notwithstanding that Athens residents are represented by different governments and representatives and located in a separate basic trading areas. WATC states that whatever political and economic market distinctions exist between Atlanta and Athens are irrelevant to the communities' residents. For instance, WATC indicates that construction has recently been completed on a new four-lane highway linking Atlanta and Athens and there are plans for a commuter rail line in the future. 24. In reply, InterMedia argues that WATC mistakenly claims that the Bureau must ignore the four statutory criteria established by Congress and limit its focus to the fact that InterMedia carries certain other Atlanta stations on its system. InterMedia asserts that there is no basis for such a novel position. InterMedia states that WATC has claimed that its lack of carriage is "directly attributable to the cursory and unsound signal testing done by InterMedia personnel." InterMedia argues that the fault lies in WATC locating its transmitter at a site from which it cannot deliver an adequate signal to the more sparsely populated areas beyond the Atlanta metropolitan area. InterMedia states that no amount of testing could have detected a viewable signal by WATC and, indeed, when it requested carriage WATC conceded that its signal would be delivered by a translator. In addition, InterMedia states that WATC does not attempt to refute the evidence demonstrating that cable operators serving neighboring communities do not carry its signal, but instead points to its carriage on systems in Gwinnet and Rockdale Counties. However, InterMedia states that none of the communities at issue are located in either of those counties and none of the systems identified by WATC are contiguous to InterMedia's system. Moreover, InterMedia indicates that all of the communities identified by WATC as receiving its signal are encompassed by a Grade B or better signal from the station, are located substantially closer to Atlanta than to Athens, and are part of the Atlanta MSA rather than the Athens MSA. 25. InterMedia maintains further that WATC's suggestion that its lack of carriage is due to the pendency of its construction permit is without merit. InterMedia states that even assuming the grant of WATC's application and the construction of increased facilities, the contour map submitted by WATC in its opposition reveals that the station would still be unable to deliver a Grade B signal to the communities. While WATC makes much of the fact that a recently-constructed translator will deliver its signal to the communities, InterMedia points out that the Commission has repeatedly held that coverage by a translator does not excuse the inability of the main station to provide technical service to the communities at issue in a market modification proceeding. InterMedia states that the plain language of Section 614 of the Act does not bestow must carry rights on any translators, even those located within a certain pre-set distance. Moreover, InterMedia argues that WATC's translator is not "fulfilling [its] traditional role of filling in gaps in the station['s] service areas. Instead, [it is] extending the station['s] coverage to areas well beyond the reach of the [its] Grade B contour[] and, as such, cannot rely on the translator to demonstrate service to the communities." 26. With regard to geographic distance, InterMedia states that WATC's attempt to obscure the average 100 kilometer distance of its main transmitter to the communities by calculating the distances to the westernmost borders of Oconee and Clarke Counties does not negate the fact that the Bureau has found distances of 63, 72, 77 and 89 kilometers to be more than ample to demonstrate the absence of a market nexus between stations and cable communities. Further, InterMedia argues that WATC's opposition only confirms the fact that the station does not air any programming that can be considered local with respect to the instant communities. InterMedia contends that, despite the general interest Christian programming may have for viewers in the communities and despite the residence in the communities of a small fraction of the guests on programs aired by WATC, the programming by WATC is not specifically tailored to the needs and interests of Athens area viewers. InterMedia points out that WATC does not dispute the fact that the Athens cable system receives ample local programming from other stations nor that it has no significant ratings in the counties in which the communities are located. In addition, InterMedia asserts that WATC's attempts to downplay the economic, political and demographic market classifications of Atlanta and Athens do nothing to change this conclusion. 27. Finally, InterMedia contends that WATC's assertion that the Athens cable system's carriage of other Atlanta stations provides sufficient justification for the Bureau to disregard the market modification criteria is misplaced. InterMedia states that Congress' decision to provide a market modification mechanism belies any suggestion that all television stations licensed to a community have identical must carry rights throughout an ADI. In addition, InterMedia points out that the Communications Act directs the Commission to consider explicitly four criteria when evaluating such petitions. Also, InterMedia states that the Bureau has never held that carriage of other stations from a particular ADI requires the carriage of all other stations licensed to the same ADI, but instead has rejected that argument. Moreover, InterMedia argues that the cases cited by WATC are distinguishable from the instant situation because in each case the Bureau concluded that the operators' petitions failed to satisfy the statutory criteria. Lastly, InterMedia maintains that WATC's claims of discrimination are devoid of merit and common sense. InterMedia contends that discrimination can only occur where a cable operator treats similarly-situated television stations differently. In the case, InterMedia states that the 7 Atlanta stations it carries all place a Grade B signal over some or all of the communities and they broadcast programming which is directed to Athens area viewers. IV. MUST CARRY COMPLAINT 28. In support of its complaint, WATC states that, by letter dated January 19, 1999, it advised InterMedia that it had commenced providing television service to Athens, Georgia via Translator W42AO and requested carriage on InterMedia's cable system serving Athens and surrounding communities. WATC states that on March 4, 1999, InterMedia refused carriage based on the claim that WATC failed to deliver an adequate signal to the cable system headend. WATC indicates that InterMedia reported that it performed signal tests on February 1 and 22, 1999, but it argues that neither was conducted in accordance with accepted engineering standards. Further, WATC states that InterMedia failed to provide the information and documentation required when carriage requests are denied based on inadequate signal strength. WATC points out that the February 1 test, besides failing to meet acceptable engineering standards, also was conducted by InterMedia at an antenna height of only 25 feet. WATC states that the Bureau has specifically required that, in their signal quality tests, cable operators use the same antenna and receiving equipment at the same height as that currently used to receive other broadcast signals. Further, WATC states that although InterMedia's February 22nd test failed to detect WATC's signal on Channel 42, this was due to the fact that a lightning strike caused the translator to be off-the-air from February 20-27, a fact which would have been made known to InterMedia if it had contacted the station. WATC concludes that InterMedia's flawed tests fail to prove that WATC is not entitled to carriage and requests the Commission to order InterMedia to commence carriage of its signal. 29. InterMedia's opposition to the complaint references its pending modification petition to exclude WATC for must carry purposes and requests that action on the instant complaint be deferred until such time as a decision is issued regarding the modification request. Also, InterMedia reserves the right to contest the quality of the signal WATC delivers to the Athens headend due to the translator's erratic performance. InterMedia indicates that a test it conducted in coordination with WATC on May 12, 1999, showed an adequate signal strength, but also revealed some signal quality inadequacies. 30. In reply, WATC argues that any signal tests conducted by InterMedia prior to the May 12th test have no decisional significance as they were either conducted without meeting specific engineering criteria or during periods when the translator was not operational. WATC maintains that the May 12th test, which was conducted in accordance with engineering criteria and at a height of 300 feet, is undisputed by InterMedia in proving that WATC delivers a signal of adequate strength to the system's headend. However, WATC takes objection to InterMedia's claims that there are flaws in WATC's picture quality (i.e., audio levels and color phase shift) and argues that picture quality is not a basis by which InterMedia can deny carriage. For instance, WATC points out that InterMedia's technician acknowledged that the color phase shift was probably attributable to the television set being used for the test and adjustments by WATC's engineer appeared to resolve any reported audio level distortions. Finally, WATC argues that since InterMedia has already acknowledged that WATC's signal strength is sufficient, it has no basis for reserving a right to change its mind on this issue later. V. DISCUSSION A. Modification 31. Based on our analysis of the evidence relating to the four statutory and other relevant factors, we deny InterMedia's petition to delete the subject communities from WATC's television market. Although WATC itself has not been carried by InterMedia in the past, InterMedia has and continues to carry numerous stations licensed to the same city, Atlanta, as WATC. In setting out the historic carriage factor, Congress clearly held that historic carriage would exist if other stations in the same area are carried. In this instance, InterMedia carries seven other stations that broadcast from the same general location as WATC. Carriage of these other stations located in the same area is persuasive evidence that the market served by all these stations is essentially the same. Evidence of historic carriage is especially persuasive where the station seeking to be deleted captures low audience ratings throughout an ADI as is the case in this instance. We note that because of its specialized format and the relatively short time on-the-air, WATC has not had a full opportunity to build a presence in its market place. We note also that a review of the off-air audience data for in the area in question does not suggest that the communities in question are associated with any other market area. 32. With respect to the second statutory factor, we note that WATC's Grade B contour does not encompass the communities at issue. Ordinarily, we might have concluded because of this that the communities were too distant to be considered part of WATC's television market. In the instant case, however, we have taken special notice of and given significant weight to InterMedia's carriage of 7 out of the other 10 television stations which are licensed to the same city as WATC. We find that InterMedia's carriage of these 7 television stations, in general, undermines its claim that the communities are not part of the same economic market for broadcast television purposes. With regard to geographic distance, we find that the average distance of 100 kilometers (or 62.1 miles) serves to attenuate WATC's connection to the cable communities and we find that the significance of geographic distance can be mitigated by other factors such as the carriage of similarly- situated television stations. With regard to programming, WATC has not demonstrated that its programming is focused on the interests of the residents of the communities at issue and we find that WATC's programming is currently insufficient to establish a specific programming nexus to the relevant communities. With regard to local programming from other stations, we find in this instance that the majority of the local stations InterMedia cites are from the same area as WATC. Thus, if anything, InterMedia's carriage of these other local stations provides support for the proposition that the areas in question are part of WATC's market rather than evidence that local service is provided by stations from other communities. Insofar as the fourth statutory factor is concerned, although WATC has no measurable viewing in the specified cable communities, we are not convinced that negligible ratings provide reason enough to grant the market modification request, particularly in view of its specialized format and short time on-air. In view of the above, we deny InterMedia's request to delete the designated communities in Oconee and Clarke Counties, Georgia from the market of WATC for mandatory carriage purposes. B. Must Carry 33. According to Section 76.55(e) of the Commission's rules, commercial television broadcast stations, such as WATC, are entitled to carriage on cable systems located in the same ADI. WATC is located in the Atlanta, Georgia ADI, which is also where the cable system served by InterMedia is located. While InterMedia initially denied carriage based on its contention that WATC did not provide a good quality signal to its system's principal headend, it subsequently agreed, after a joint signal strength test conducted with WATC, that the station provided an adequate signal. With regard to the reservations expressed by InterMedia as to WATC's picture quality, we do not find that InterMedia has provided sufficient information to justify denial of WATC's on this ground. In any event, WATC in its reply appears to have adequately resolved this issue. In view of the above, we find that grant of WATC's request to be in the public interest. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 34. 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), that the petition for special relief (CSR-5387-A) filed on behalf of Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a InterMedia Partners IS DENIED. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the must carry complaint filed by Community Television, Inc. (CSR-5393-M) IS GRANTED pursuant to Section 614(d)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 534). InterMedia IS ORDERED to commence carriage of WATC on its Athens, Georgia cable system sixty (60) days from the released date of this Order. WATC shall notify InterMedia in writing of its carriage and channel position elections (76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f) of the Commission's rules) within thirty (30) days of the release date. 36. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau