******************************************************** 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: ) ) ) CSR-5110-A DeSoto Broadcasting, Inc. ) ) For Modification of the ) Sarasota, Florida ADI ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 3, 1998 Released: February 9, 1998 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. DeSoto Broadcasting Inc., licensee of WBSV-TV (Channel 62), Venice, Florida, ("WBSV"), has filed with the Commission, pursuant to Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.59(a) of the Commission's rules, a petition requesting modification of the television market of WBSV to include the communities of Apollo Beach, Balm, Brandon, Burnt Store Marina, Cape Coral, Cypress Lake, East Fort Myers, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Shores, Gibsonton, Hillsborough County (southern portion), Iona Gardens, Lee County (unincorporated), MacDill, North Fort Myers, Riverview, Ruskin, South Fort Myers, Sun City, Sun City Center, Tice, Valrico (southern portion) and Wimauma (collectively, the "Communities"). CableVision Industries, Inc. ("CableVision"), Fort Myers Broadcasting Company, licensee of WINK-TV, Fort Myers, Florida ("WINK"), Jones Cablevision, Inc. ("Jones"), and Media General Broadcasters Inc., licensee of television station WFLA-TV ("WFLA"), each filed an opposition to which WBSV filed a consolidated reply. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, 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. The Commission is also directed to consider changes in market areas. Section 614(h)(1)(C) further 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, Section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) 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 non-cable 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 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 Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, 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 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 demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The final factor concerns viewing patterns in the cable community in cable and non-cable 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 non-cable homes, and significantly viewed surveys typically measure viewing only in non-cable households, such surveys may need to be supplemented with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes. III. MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENTS 6. WBSV is assigned to the Sarasota ADI which includes Sarasota County and certain communities which were added by the Cable Services Bureau's decision in DeSoto Broadcasting, Inc. The cable communities which WBSV seeks to add to its television market are located in Hillsborough and Lee Counties located on the Gulf Coast of Florida as are the cable communities added to WBSV's Sarasota ADI by DeSoto I. 7. In support of its petition, WBSV states that expansion of its television market to include the Communities would effectuate the purposes of Section 614 of the Communications Act because WBSV provides service to those communities and the communities form part of WBSV's economic market. WBSV admits that it has never been carried by the cable systems serving the cable communities at issue but attributes its lack of historical carriage to its status as a new station. WBSV states that it has been broadcasting since 1991. 8. With regard to local service, WBSV asserts that all of the communities at issue are covered by its Grade B contour or are within its Grade B fringe. WBSV further asserts that there are no natural obstacles or boundaries in the area which could adversely impact reception of its signal in the Communities. WBSV further asserts that the Communities are geographically proximate to WBSV's transmitter site as the average distance between the Communities and its transmitter site is 47 miles. 9. With regard to programming service, WBSV states that it provides programming that is targeted to the needs and interests of the Communities many of which are retirement communities. WBSV maintains that listings of the television station in local newspapers and magazines show that WBSV is considered local to the market. WBSV states that it is listed in both the Time Warner-Tampa Bay and the Tampa-Sarasota editions of TV Guide and the Tampa Tribune-Times's weekly television magazine, publications which circulate throughout the Tampa Bay area where the majority of the cable communities are located. WBSV further states that it is listed in the Fort Myers News-Press' weekly TeleView and the Charlotte Sun Herald's TV Times, publications which circulate throughout the remaining cable communities. A. CableVision's Opposition 10. In opposition, CableVision states that it provides cable service to Hillsborough County which includes the communities of Apollo Beach, Balm, Brandon, Gibsonton, Hillsborough County (south), MacDill, Riverview, Ruskin, Sun City, Sun City Center, Valrico (south), and Wimauma. CableVision states that WBSV has never been carried on its system or any other cable system serving those communities in the six-and-one-half year broadcast history of the station. Moreover, CableVision states that WBSV cannot properly be considered a new station because it has been operating since 1991. CableVision points out that it does not carry television station WWSB(TV), the only other station licensed to the Sarasota ADI and thus denial of WBSV's petition would not have an adverse impact on competition. 11. With regard to statutory factor two, local service, CableVision argues that WBSV fails to provide technical or programming service to the communities served by the cable operator. CableVision states that WBSV provides minimal Grade B contour coverage to the cable communities served by the cable operator. CableVision further states that WBSV, in its petition fails to address the issue of programming service to the Communities. CableVision maintains that WBSV failed to address its programming because the station does not broadcast local news, public affairs, or sport programs. Cablevision maintains that, contrary to WBSV's assertions, the cable communities in Hillsborough County are geographically remote from WBSV. CableVision maintains that the location of its headend serving Hillsborough County falls far outside of WBSV's Grade B contour. 12. With regard to statutory factor three, CableVision states that it carries the signals of numerous television stations licensed to Tampa-St. Petersburg and that those stations provide news and public affairs programming that is targeted to subscribers residing in Hillsborough County. 13. CableVision further states that WBSV did not address statutory factor four, audience viewership. CableVision argues that WBSV's failure to address this factor demonstrates that the station has failed to build an audience despite having had opportunity to do so during its six-year operational history. CableVision asserts that WBSV's lack of an audience further demonstrates that the station lacks a nexus with the local market. B. Jones' Opposition 14. Jones states that it serves the communities of Fort Myers, Cypress Lake, East Fort Myers, Fort Myers Shores, Iona Gardens, South Fort Myers, Tice, and unincorporated portions of Lee County which are located in the heart of the Fort Myers ADI. Jones states that it has never carried WBSV on its cable system serving the relevant cable communities. Jones argues that WBSV has failed to establish a market nexus with the communities served by its cable system. Jones further states that WBSV is not carried on any nearby cable systems including Time Warner's Cape Coral system, MediaOne's cable system serving Naples, Collier County, North Fort Myers and unincorporated Lee County, and Comcast's system serving Lehigh Acres. 15. Jones states that, with regard to local service, the cable communities within its service area fall far outside of WBSV's Grade B contour as shown by WBSV's Grade B contour map on file with the Commission. Jones asserts that WBSV failed to address the issue of local programming because the station's programming, consisting of reruns, movies, and paid programming, is not specifically targeted to the cable communities at issue. 16. Jones further argues that other factors such as geographic distance and natural boundaries weigh against the grant of WBSV's modification request. Jones states that WBSV's city of license, Sarasota, is geographically distant because it is located 63 miles from the communities served by Jones' cable system. Jones argues that not only are the cable communities geographically distant but they are separated by the Caloosahatchee River, a natural market boundary. 17. With regard to programming by other local stations eligible for carriage, Jones asserts that it carries numerous television stations which are licensed to the Fort Myers area and which provide extensive coverage of local news and sporting events. Jones further asserts that it carries local origination and local access channels that also provide local news and sports programming to the relevant cable communities. Jones argues that, because it already carries numerous local stations which provide more focused local programming, WBSV is not entitled to favorable treatment under this criterion. With regard to the fourth criterion, Jones maintains that it has been unable to identify any measurable ratings for WBSV in Lee County, Florida where its cable system is located. Jones states that while WBSV is listed in the Sarasota editions of TV Guide and of News-Press TeleView, the Fort Myers edition of News- Press TeleView does not list WBSV. 18. Jones maintains that the fact that the communities located in the Fort Myers area which it serves and Sarasota, WBSV's city of license, do not form a common market is evidenced by their respective assignments to different Designated Market Areas (DMAs). Jones points out that Sarasota is assigned to the Tampa-St.Petersburg DMA and Fort Myers is assigned to the Fort Myers-Naples DMA. Jones thus argues that expansion of WBSV's market well into a neighboring DMA would frustrate the purposes of the market modification statute. C. WFLA's Opposition 19. WFLA argues that the communities which WBSV seeks to add to its television market are the same communities which WBSV declared were not part of its market in an earlier market modification petition filed by WBSV. In that proceeding, WBSV stated that it should not be assessed regulatory fees on the basis of its assignment to the Tampa-St. Petersburg DMA. The Commission, in response to WBSV's request for a reduction in its regulatory fees, found that WBSV does not serve Pinellas County, in which St. Petersburg is located, and serves only a small section of Hillsborough County, where Tampa is located. As a result, WBSV's regulatory fee was besed upon the number of television households it served. WFLA further argues that WBSV's petition should be denied because WBSV fails to satisfy any of the four statutory factors for market modification. WFLA asserts that factor one, historical carriage, should be given significant weight in this case because WBSV has operated for six years and has failed to obtain carriage on any cable system serving the Communities. WFLA states that WBSV's record of non-carriage in the Tampa/St. Petersburg and Fort Myers/Naples television markets "reflect[s] a judgment as to the geography of the market involved." 20. With regard to local service, WFLA maintains that WBSV fails to place a Grade B contour over the majority of the cable communities at issue. Specifically, WFLA asserts that WBSV's Grade B contour map which is on file with the Commission shows that only the communities of Sun City, North Fort Myers, and Wimauma fall within WBSV's Grade B contour. WFLA further asserts that the Communities are geographically distant as they are located between 47 and 49 miles from WBSV's city of license. WFLA maintains that WBSV's lack of a local nexus is further evidenced by WBSV's failure to provide local programming to the Communities. WFLA states that the majority of WBSV's programming consists of syndicated programming and infomercials. 21. WFLA states that there are numerous local stations which have a closer nexus to the Communities which are being carried by cable systems serving those communities. WFLA further states that the programming broadcast by WBSV is already being aired on the Tampa/St. Petersburg television stations for 25 percent of the total weekday broadcast hours and thus WBSV would not contribute to diversity of programming within the market. 22. WFLA further states that WBSV lacks a measurable audience and thus evidences no ratings in the Communities in both cable and non-cable homes. WFLA argues that the fact that WBSV is listed in certain newspapers is not persuasive in this proceeding because those newspapers circulate through the communities which WBSV seeks to add as well as those which WBSV already serves. Thus WFLA argues that the newspaper listings are not demonstrative of WBSV's presence in the market of the Communities. 23. WFLA asserts that there are other factors which the Commission should consider in this proceeding. WFLA argues that the "market realities" of geography, cultural and political boundaries demonstrate that the cable communities at issue and WBSV do not form a common economic marketplace. WFLA states that WBSV's city of license and its home county form economic markets and encompass political districts which are distinct from those of Tampa/St. Petersburg and of Fort Myers/Naples. WFLA states that, in addition, there are certain natural barriers which separate the Venice/Sarasota market from the Tampa/Fort Myers market in which the Communities are located. WFLA states that Tampa Bay, a 32-mile long inlet, separates the cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg from the cities of Sarasota and Venice. WFLA further states that Charlotte Harbor, a 30-mile long bay, separates Venice and Sarasota from Fort Myers/Naples and the surrounding areas. WFLA points out that the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), among others, classifies the Sarasota area separately from the Tampa and Fort Myers areas. WFLA states that OMB's Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") classifies Venice, WBSV's city of license, as part of the Sarasota MSA. D. WINK's Opposition 24. WINK opposes WBSV's petition with regard to cable communities located in Charlotte and Lee Counties which includes Cape Coral, Burnt Store Marina, North Fort Myers, Fort Myers, Cypress Lake, East Fort Myers, Fort Myers Shores, Iona Gardens, Lee County, South Fort Myers, and Tice. WINK states that WBSV has no history of carriage or measurable audience in those communities despite WBSV's six-year history of operations. WINK further states that WBSV fails to provide technical service to the cable communities because those communities are located outside WBSV's Grade B contour. WINK further states that significant natural barriers such as the Charlotte Harbor and the Caloosahatchee River separate the cable communities in Charlotte and Lee Counties from WBSV's city of license. WINK further states that Charlotte and Lee Counties form a commercial market distinct from WBSV's Sarasota County and that the cable communities within Charlotte and Lee Counties are well-served by seven local commercial television stations licensed in the Fort Myers-Naples television markets. E. WBSV's Consolidated Reply 25. WBSV asserts that those who oppose its petition seek to avoid competition and diversity in the marketplace. WBSV states that its assignment to a one-county ADI when the station is closely proximate to another ADI makes a clear case for market modification. WBSV argues however that exclusive reliance of the four statutory factors is not warranted here because WBSV is a smaller, less established station that has obtained limited cable carriage for reasons that are not related to its marketplace. For instance, WBSV states that evidence with respect to its viewership should be given little weight in this proceeding because of WBSV's lack of historic carriage on cable systems serving the Communities. On the other hand, WBSV argues that some of the statements made in the oppositions are inaccurate. WBSV states that it commissioned a signal strength study to determine its actual Grade B contour and that, contrary to allegations made in the oppositions, the station provides the Communities with Grade B contour coverage or "Grade B-like" service for those communities which are within WBSV's Grade B fringe. WBSV states that the communities in Hillsborough County are located, on average, 5.8 miles from its Grade B contour and that the Fort Myers/Naples communities are located, on average, 2.19 miles from WBSV's Grade B contour. 26. In reply to Jones' opposition, WBSV asserts that Jones' attempt to show that there are natural barriers between the cable communities served by Jones and WBSV is misplaced. For example, WBSV states that the communities of Fort Myers and North Fort Myers are located directly across the Caloosahatchee River from each other and are connected by two bridges. Thus WBSV argues that the river does not form the type of natural barrier which the Commission has recognized as a market boundary. Similarly, WBSV disputes WINK's allegation that the Charlotte Harbor forms a natural market boundary when WBSV already has must-carry rights in communities on both sides of the harbor. WBSV points out that the Commission has found communities to be within a station's television market even where those communities are distant, located on the far side of a major river, and in a different state. 27. With regard to service by local television stations, WBSV states that the opposition misinterprets this statutory factor. WBSV asserts that service by local stations does not act as a bar to WBSV's ADI claims here and should not weigh against it in this proceeding. 28. WBSV maintains that its programming, particularly its sports programming, shows that the station provides service to the Communities. WBSV states that it airs the football and basketball games of the Southeastern Conferences and Big East Conferences as well as games of local Florida professional sports teams. 29. WBSV argues that, in addition to the four statutory factors, the Commission should consider other factors in market modification proceedings which may serve to define economic markets. In this case, WBSV states that it seeks consistency between its service area with regard to the imposition of regulatory fees and its service area for purposes of mandatory carriage. WBSV states that the Commission, for regulatory fee purposes, includes communities within the Fort Myers-Naples ADI within WBSV's service area but does not specify which communities were included. WBSV further states that the station currently has mandatory carriage rights in portions of the Fort Myers-Naples MSA and that the station is carried in nearby communities of Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte, Florida, respectively. F. Supplemental Pleadings 30. WFLA filed a Motion to Strike certain evidence submitted by WBSV in its Consolidated Reply as improper. WFLA claims that the signal strength study submitted by WBSV in its Consolidated Reply should have been submitted earlier to support WBSV's petition. WFLA maintains that the signal strength study constitutes a new argument to which WFLA, in its Opposition, was deprived of an opportunity to respond. Alternatively, WFLA argues that the signal strength study commissioned by WBSV is not relevant in a market modification proceeding to determine a television station's Grade B contour coverage. 31. WINK filed comments on WBSV's Consolidated Reply. WINK argues that the signal strength study commissioned by WBSV should be stricken from the record as contrary to the technical requirements for engineering studies found in Sections 73.684 and 73.686(a) of the Commission's rules. 32. WBSV filed a Motion To Strike the supplemental pleadings filed by WFLA and by WINK, respectively. WBSV argues that those pleadings are unauthorized replies and thus should receive no consideration in this proceeding. WBSV further argues that, pursuant to Section 1.45 of the Commission's rules, its Consolidated Reply which included the signal strength study, was an appropriate response to allegations that it failed to provide Grade B contour coverage to the Communities. Moreover, WBSV asserts that its compliance with the Commission's technical requirements for engineering studies is not at issue in this proceeding. III. DISCUSSION 33. Based upon our analysis of the record relating to the four statutory and other relevant factors, we will grant, in part, and deny, in part, WBSV's petition. We grant WBSV's petition with regard to those communities for which it provides Grade B contour coverage and satisfies other relevant criteria. We deny WBSV's petition with regard to the remaining communities. 34. The cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules were adopted as part of the 1992 Cable Act. According to the legislative history of that Act, the use of ADI market areas is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they serve and which form their economic market." The Act specifically provided that the commission was to consider adding additional communities or excluding communities from the markets of television stations "to better effectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements. These factors, however, were "not intended to be exclusive." In acting on such requests the Commission was instructed to "afford particular attention to the value of localism, taking into account four specified statutory factors." We believe that the addition of the Communities to WBSV's television market will better effectuate the purposes of the must- carry statutory provisions. We now turn to our analysis of the four statutory factors for market modification. A. Historical Signal Carriage 35. Statutory factor one is "whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, has been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community." WBSV has no history of carriage on the cable systems serving the cable communities at issue. WBSV claims that the lack of historical carriage should be given little weight in this proceeding because it is a relatively new station that has been broadcasting since 1991. WBSV has an operational history of six-and-one-half years and thus it can not be properly considered a new station. The absence of historic carriage weighs against the requested action. 36. Historic carriage of television stations in the same area is a factor to be considered in this case. At least one cable system serving the Communities, CableVision, states that it does not carry WWSB(TV), the only other station licensed to the Sarasota ADI in addition to WBSV. The lack of carriage of other stations in the same area may indicate a belief that no common market exists between the station involved and the cable communities at issue. 37. Carriage on nearby cable systems is not a factor enumerated in the statute, but it also seems likely, depending upon the specific circumstances involved, that carriage on nearby systems could serve as evidence to define the logical scope of a station's market. Such carriage could also serve to demonstrate market nexus between the broadcast station and the communities where the station is carried and thus provide evidence of the scope of a station's market. WBSV maintains that it has a history of carriage in the nearby communities of Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte in Charlotte County and Boca Grande in Lee County. This weighs in favor of the requested action when considered in light of those communities for which WBSV provides Grade B contour coverage. B. Local Service to Communities 38. Statutory factor two is "whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community." This factor incorporates both technical service and programming service. With respect to technical service, the Commission has stated in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92- 259 that "to show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable communities, 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." WBSV, according to the Grade B contour map on file with the Commission, places a Grade B contour over the communities of North Fort Myers, Sun City and Wimauma. The remaining cable communities are located outside of WBSV's Grade B contour, unlike DeSoto I where all the communities at issue were within WBSV's Grade B contour. 39. The scope of a local station's market may be measured through geographic means by examining the geographic distance between the station at issue and the relevant cable communities. We note that the communities are located, on average, 47 miles from WBSV's transmitter site. We find that WBSV's transmitter site cannot be considered closely proximate to the Communities. We further note that the oppositions claim that there are certain waterways which act as natural boundaries between the Communities and WBSV. These waterways include Charlotte Harbor and the Caloosahatchee River. We note that natural boundaries indicate the logical scope of an economic market. We thus conclude that the topography and the distance involved between WBSV and the Communities are some evidence that WBSV and the Communities do not form a single economic market. 40. With respect to programming service, WBSV asserts that in addition to its syndicated programming, it airs sports programming which is of interest to residents of the Communities. While WBSV provides evidence of some sports programming, WBVS does not show that it airs programming that is targeted to the specific interests of residents of the Communities. C. Coverage of News, Sporting Events, or Other Events of Interest by Other Stations Entitled to Carriage 41. Statutory factor three is "whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system in such a 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." We do not believe that Congress intended this third criterion to operate as a bar to a station's ADI claim whenever it could be shown that other stations serve the communities at issue. This factor is given greater weight where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights in certain communities and it is clear that the station is not providing local service to those communities. In this case, WBSV seeks to add communities served by, among others, Jones' and CableVision's cable systems. Jones and CableVision each carries local television stations serving the interests of the communities which WBSV seeks to add. We find that coverage by other stations is not decisionally significant in those communities where WBSV provides Grade B contour coverage, however such coverage in the remaining cable communities where WBSV provides no local service weighs against the requested action. D. Station Audience 42. Statutory factor four is "evidence of viewing patterns in cable and non-cable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community." The record indicates that WBSV has no measurable audience in the Communities. We note that WBSV has introduced evidence that it is included in television listings such as the News-Press TeleView along with stations which are licensed in the Tampa and Fort Myers/Naples areas. We further note that the Commission has recognized that stations can take up to three years to establish viewing patterns. WBSV has been broadcasting for at least twice that length of time and has not garnered a measurable audience during that time. We note that WBSV does not claim that it is a specialty station that attracts a limited audience and that is entitled to consideration as a valuable source of diverse programming. Thus we find that this factor weighs against the requested action. E. Supplemental Issues 43. With regard to the supplemental pleadings, we find that WBSV's Consolidated Reply responded to issues raised in the oppositions and thus was proper under Section 1.45(b) of the Commission's rules. As a result, we deny WFLA's Motion To Strike WBSV's reply. With regard to WINK's comments concerning the manner in which WBSV conducted its signal strength study, we agree that WBSV has not complied with Commission requirements for Grade B contour showings found in Part 73 of the Commission's rules. For determination of WBSV's Grade B contour coverage, we have relied on WBSV's Grade B contour map on file with the Commission which was submitted as part of the record in this case. F. Summary 44. We have carefully considered each statutory and other relevant factors in the context of the circumstances presented here. We are under no obligation to give particular weight to any one of the several factors under consideration. We have relied on local service, historic carriage in nearby communities, and other relevant factors to find for the requested action in communities where WBSV provides Grade B contour coverage. We have also taken into consideration the respective DMA assignments of the Communities. We note that the communities which we add to WBSV's television market are located in Lee and Hillsborough Counties. We further note that those Counties have been assigned to the same DMA -- Tampa-St. Petersburg -- as WBSV's city of license. The communities which we have determined are not part of WBSV's television market are located in counties which have been assigned to the Fort Myers/Naples DMA. We find that, with regard to those communities which we decline to add to WBSV's market, the lack of historical carriage and the absence of a measurable audience, where the station has been on-the-air for at least six years, is of evidential significance when linked with other information regarding the market, including the lack of Grade B contour coverage and the evidence of market boundaries. V.ORDERING CLAUSE 45. 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-5011-A)filed by DeSoto Broadcasting Inc., licensee of WBSV-TV, IS GRANTED with respect to the communities of North Fort Myers, Sun City, and Wimauma, Florida. 46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition with regard to the communities of Apollo Beach, Balm, Brandon, Burnt Store Marina, Cape Coral, Cypress Lake, East Fort Myers, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Shores, Gibsonton, Hillsborough County (southern portion), Iona Gardens, Lee County (unincorporated), MacDill, Riverview, Ruskin, South Fort Myers, Sun City Center, Tice, and Valrico (southern portion), Florida IS DENIED. 47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WBSV shall notify the cable operators serving the communities added to WBSV's television market of its carriage and channel position elections pursuant to Sections 76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f), within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. The affected cable systems shall comply with the applicable rules within sixty (60) days of such notification from WBSV. 48. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau