******************************************************** 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: ) ) Continental Cablevision of Jacksonville, Inc. ) CSR-4762-A d/b/a Continental Cablevision of Broward ) County, Inc., ) Comcast of Broward County, Inc., ) Dynamic Cablevision of Florida, Ltd., and ) Advocate Communications, Inc., d/b/a Coral ) Springs Cable TV ) Dynamic Cablevision of Florida, Ltd. ) CSR-4722-A and ) Continental Cablevision of Jacksonville, ) CSR-4707-A Inc., d/b/a Comcast of Broward County, Inc. ) and Continental Cablevision of Broward ) County, Inc. ) Rifkin/Narragansett South Florida, CATV ) CSR-4776-A Limited Partnership, d/b/a Gold Coast ) Cablevision ) Complaint of Hispanic Keys Broadcasting ) CSR-4809-M Corp. ) Advocate Communications, Inc. d/b/a ) CSR-4777-A Cable TV of Coral Springs ) Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a ) CSR-4857-A Adelphia Cable Communications ) Complaint of WEYS Television Corp. ) CSR-4838-M Gulf & Pacific Communications L.P. ) CSR-5101-A Complaint of Hispanic Keys Broadcasting ) CSR-5085-M Corp. ) Cable Satellite of South Miami, Inc. ) CSR-5121-A Complaint of Hispanic Keys Broadcasting ) CSR-5080-M Corp. ) ) Market Modifications and the Miami, Florida ) Area of Dominant Influence ) ) Petitions for Reconsideration and ) Application for Review ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: August 12, 1999 Released: August 16, 1999 By the Commission: 1. Before the Commission are seven petitions seeking review or reconsideration of six market modification orders and four must carry orders adopted by the Cable Services Bureau pursuant to delegated authority and one petition seeking combined reconsideration of two market modification orders adopted by the Commission. 2. The following orders and petitions are involved: petition for reconsideration filed by WWFD- TV of the decision in CSR-4762-A (Continental Cablevision of Jacksonville, Inc. d/b/a Continental Cablevision of Broward County, Inc. et al., 11 FCC Rcd 14909 (1996); petition for reconsideration filed by WWFD-TV of the decisions in CSR-4776-A/CSR-4809-M (Rifkin/Narragansett South Florida, CATV Limited Partnership, d/b/a Gold Coast Cablevision/Complaint of Hispanic Keys Broadcasting Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 21090 (1996), and petition for reconsideration filed by WEYS of the decision in CSR-4776-A (Rifkin/Narragansett South Florida, CATV Limited Partnership, d/b/a Gold Coast Cablevision, 11 FCC Rcd 21090 (1996); petition for reconsideration filed by WEYS of the decision in CSR-4777-A (Advocate Communications, Inc., d/b/a Cable TV of Coral Springs, 11 FCC Rcd 14923 (1996); application for review filed by WEYS of the decisions in CSR-4857-A/CSR-4838-M (Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P., DA 97-498 (released March 11, 1997); petition for reconsideration filed by WWFD-TV of the decisions in CSR-5101- A/CSR-5085-M (Gulf & Pacific Communications, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 21986 (1997); and petition for reconsideration filed by WWFD-TV of the decisions in CSR-5121-A/CSR-5080-M (Cable Satellite of South Miami, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 298 (1998). Also included is a petition for reconsideration filed by WEYS of the Commission's decision in CSR-4722-A/CSR-4707-A (Dynamic Cablevision of Florida et al., 12 FCC Rcd 9952 (1997). 3. The broadcasters seeking review or reconsideration request that the Commission reverse the six Bureau orders granting the cable operators' petitions to delete various communities in the Miami, Florida ADI for must carry purposes and the one Commission order which affirmed the Cable Services Bureau's prior decision. We consolidate consideration of these petitions because they all involve the Miami television market, the legal arguments presented by the parties are nearly identical and the interests of administrative efficiency will be advanced thereby. 4. We affirm the Orders adopted by the Cable Services Bureau and the Order adopted by the Commission in the above-captioned matters and deny the associated applications for review. The facts, applicable law, arguments of the parties, and the Bureau's detailed analyses were fully set forth in the underlying decisions and the Bureau's and Commission's actions therein. The Commission addressed nearly identical issues raised on review by the captioned parties in its decision regarding the New York ADI Appeals Memorandum Opinion and Order ("New York ADI Order"). Petitioners have raised no new arguments or facts in support of their petitions. Further, on December 21, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the Commission's Order in the New York ADI Order. In view of the Commission's affirmation of the Bureau's decisions in the New York ADI Order and the Court's affirmation of that decision, which addressed nearly identical issues raised by the parties in this proceeding, we affirm the Bureau's initial decisions and the Commission's Order on reconsideration. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the captioned applications for review ARE DENIED. 6. This action is taken pursuant to statutory authority found in Sections I, 4(i), 5(c), 405, and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155(c), 405, 534(h)(1)(C). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary