WPCV6 2BJZ Courier3|a>^x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si Room 907HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%CX@2'6KF< Z3|a"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2Kh KKKI"i~'^5>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\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72\0 K 4FZT6py.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P q7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPr2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&Ps2e=5,&e4  pG;&\t0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&Xu7nC:, D3 yO-ԍOpposition at 4 and 5.> WBPX points out   =that the Bureau has denied exclusion petitions, even in situations where a station's Grade B contour falls   short of the cable communities, but the cable operator was carrying other stations from the same  SZ-  zcommunity of license. As an example, WBPX cites TWI Cable, Inc.,@ZD3 yO -ԍ12 FCC Rcd 13187 (1997).@ and notes that in that case, the  S4-  .Bureau found that carriage by the cable operator of five stations from the same area84D3 yOv -ԍOpposition at 6.8 showed a "strong  S -market nexus"G 2D3 {O"-ԍTWI Cable, Inc. at 13193.G between the service areas and the station opposing the market modification.  S-  10. WBPX maintains that Greater Worcester's argument about the distance between WBPX's   transmitter and the communities at issue is irrelevant because presently, Greater Worcester is carrying a   station licensed to Derry, New Hampshire, which "is on an average 54 miles from the Cable"l,`(`(88"  S-  Communities."D3 yOh-  ԍOpposition at 7. Footnote 19 reads: "[t]he following television stations carried by Greater Worcester are   located similar distances from Boston or the Cable Communities: WMFP, Lawrence, MA (26 miles from Boston   and on average, 47 miles from the Cable Communities); WNDS, Derry, NH, (41 miles from Boston and on average   54 miles from the Cable Communities); and WWLP, Springfield, MA (80 miles from Boston and on average from   hthe Cable Communities). Norwell, WBPX's city of license, is located 17 miles from Boston and on average 53 miles  {OP-from the Cable Communities." See Exhibit F. WBPX argues that the geographic closeness of the Station and the communities at issue  S-  "reinforces their common location within the Boston market,"8BD3 yO-ԍOpposition at 8.8 and maintains that the exclusion of the   communities in question from its market would adversely affect its ability to reach viewers in a portion   yof its ADI. WBPX asserts that Greater Worcester is using the instant proceeding to avoid its mandatory   carriage obligations. According to WBPX, the issue of whether the Station can provide an adequate off  =air signal was resolved when WBPX, during the earlier mustcarry proceeding, "demonstrated ... that the  S-station does provide a good quality signal to Greater Media's headend."9D3 yO-ԍOpposition at 11.9  S-   11.` ` WBPX states that it recently completed the construction of its studio, but for lack of an   occupancy permit, it cannot yet move into its new facilities and produce locallyoriented or locally  originated programming. It asserts, however, that when it moves to its new studio, once the occupancy   =permit is granted, its programming will address the communities at issue, including other communities in   =the Boston market. Indeed, WBPX argues, its lack of local programming is due to its condition as a new   =television station, rather than to the scope of its market. Therefore, WBPX alleges, under the principles  S -  /enunciated in Market Modifications and the New York Area of Dominant Influence,$ b D3 yO-  Kԍ12 FCC Rcd 12262 (1997). In support, WBPX cites the following language: "[p]rogramming is considered   in the context of Section 614(h) proceedings only insofar as it serves to demonstrate the scope of a station's existing  {Ob-  ;market and service area, not as quid pro quo that guarantees carriage or as an obligation that must be met to obtain  {O,-carriage." Id. at 12270. its lack of local   programming should not be an obstacle for carriage on the Greater Worcester system. WBPX argues that   !the economic and demographic relationship among Worcester, Boston, and Norwell increases the connection between WBPX and Greater Worcester.  S -  # 12.` ` In addition, WBPX maintains that the Bureau should not give much weight to the historic   carriage factor in the instant proceeding because in similar cases, the Bureau has said that doing so "would   zdefeat the underlying purposes of the mandatory carriage requirement by preventing weaker or newer  S-  .stations that cable systems had previously declined to carry, from ever obtaining the right to carriage."(N D3 {O!-  ԍCiting Avenue TV Cable Service, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 4803, 4811 (1996); Chronicle Publishing Co., 10 FCC Rcd  {OJ"-9474, 9481 (1995); The World Company d/b/a Columbine CableVision, 11 FCC Rcd 5662, 5671 (1996).(   Also, WBPX argues that, as a new station, its current lack of viewership is irrelevant to determine the  SB-  scope of its market.BD3 {O%-  xԍCiting Horizon Broadcasting Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd at 11638, (1997), WBPX states that the Bureau has noted that viewing patterns can take up to three years to establish in the case of new stations. Opposition at 16. Otherwise, WBPX asserts, similarly situated stations would be unable to establish   themselves and obtain carriage. In addition, WBPX maintains that although its programming is not",`(`(88S"   presently listed on local TV listings, once it becomes a PaxTV affiliate and changes its programming   jformat, it will be listed on the local TV listings, or at least, TV listing services intend to distribute PaxTV   weekly listings to local newspapers. WBPX argues that granting the instant petition would go contrary   to Congress' goals to provide cable subscribers with diversity of programming, which WBPX could  S`-  \provide its new programming that will include "many family oriented and local programs."9`D3 yO-ԍOpposition at 18.9 Finally,   WBPX argues that it cannot be denied its carriage rights in the communities in question simply because   yof the local programming efforts of other television stations in the Boston ADI. Those efforts, according to WBPX, should be given little weight in deciding the abovecaptioned petition.  S-   13.` ` In reply, Greater Worcester disagrees with WBPX's argument that historical carriage   should not be given much weight. It points out that the Commission has concluded that historical carriage  SH -  needs to be considered along with the other three statutory factors.$H XD3 {O@ -  ԍGreater Worcester cites Time Warner Cable, 12 FCC Rcd at 2325455, TCI of Illinois, et al., 12 FCC Rcd  {O -  23231, 23241 (1997), and Dynamic Cablevision of Florida, Ltd. et al., 12 FCC Rcd 9952, 996061 (1997), where   the Commission stated that, while not decisional, the historical carriage factor would be considered in deciding market modification requests. Reply at 3. Greater Worcester maintains that   WBPX's argument of a more encompassing Grade B contour is only an attempt to justify its lack of local   programming. In addition, Greater Worcester points out that WBPX fails to explain the nature and quantity of local programming it will offer.  S -   14.` ` Greater Worcester argues that even if WBPX moves into its new facilities, the proposed   -Grade B contour would not cover the most heavily populated areas. Those areas, Greater Worcester notes,   zwould lie outside the Grade B contour the Station proposed in 1995, and the other cable communities  S-  =would be "fringe" communities. Greater Worcester maintains that WBPX's reliance on TWI Cable Inc.@DD3 yO-ԍ12 FCC Rcd 13187 (1997).@  S-  is misplaced because, unlike the instant situation, in TWI the cable operator was carrying five other  S-  [stations licensed to the same community. In this case, Greater Worcester point out, its system does not   carry any other stations licensed to Norwell, Massachusetts, WBPX's city of license. Greater Worcester   [restates that not only is WBPX geographically remote from the communities in question, but that it fails   {to provide them with an adequate overtheair signal. Greater Worcester asserts that while lack of   audience share in the relevant communities may not be determinative in and of itself, it is significant  S-  -when, as here, the broadcaster has failed to meet the other statutory factors.4D3 yOj-ԍReply at 12.4 Greater Worcester maintains   that WBPX does not have the required local nexus to the communities at issue, and argues that simply   because Greater Worcester, the cable communities, and WBPX are located in the same ADI, WBPX is   not entitled to automatic carriage in every community in the Boston ADI, without first complying with   the market modification provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of   1992. Otherwise, Greater Worcester asserts, the anomaly of transforming a local station into a "super station" would occur.  S-  215.` ` In its Comments in Support of Greater Worcester's petition, Fox Television Stations, Inc.   Mstates that the exclusion of the cable communities at issue would not disrupt any established viewing"d ,`(`(88"   patterns or existing cable audiences because WBPX has never been carried on the Greater Worcester   system, or provide an overtheair signal to those communities. Fox notes that WBPX's programming   =does not address local interests; rather, it points out, its programming "is standard Paxson programming,  S-  which has not specific nexus to the Communities.":D3 yO-ԍFox Comments at 4.: Fox concludes that the abovecaptioned petition   should be granted "because analysis of the four statutory factors reveals that WBPX is not the type of  S8-station that should be entitled to demand carriage in the Communities."7 8XD3 {O0-ԍId. at 5.7  S-W ANALYSIS AND DECISION ă  S-  16.` ` Based on our analysis of the evidence relating to the four statutory and other relevant   .factor, Greater Worcester petition for market modification is granted. As an initial matter, we note that,   >according to the legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act, the use of ADI market area is intended "to   ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they service and which form their economic  S -  <market."Z! D3 yO-ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).Z The ADI market change process incorporated into the Communications Act, however, is neither   intended to be a process whereby cable operators may seek relief from the mandatory signal carriage   =obligations apart from the question of whether a change in the market area is warranted, nor a vehicle for   broadcast stations to reach service areas that otherwise they could not serve. When viewed against this   backdrop, and considering all of the relevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that the   operator's exclusion petition appears to be a legitimate request to redraw ADI boundaries to make them   harmonious with market realities. Greater Worcester's actions do not reflect an intention to skirt its signal   carriage responsibilities under the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules, nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory conduct against WBPX.  Sh-  17.` ` With respect to the first statutory factor, while we recognize that WBPX's lack of   ydemonstrated historical carriage is a reflection of the Station's recent origin, we disagree with its argument   that the Commission should find that WBPX meets this factor by focusing on the historical carriage of   [four other stations licensed to communities other than Norwell, or on Grade B contour changes that may   zcome about once the Station's construction permit is reinstated; an occupancy permit is obtained, and  S-  WBPX moves into its new studio facilities. We find that WBPX's reliance on TWI Cable, Inc., supra,   jis misplaced. In that case, the Commission found a "strong market nexus" between the service areas and   jthe station opposing the market modification, because the cable operator was carrying five other stations   licensed to the same community. In the instant case, however, no other station licensed to Norwell, Massachusetts, is carried by Greater Worcester.  S-  S-  18.` ` Turning to the second statutory factor, we have held that the presence of a Grade B  S-  .contour over a community is evidence generally sufficient to satisfy this factor."&zD3 yO$-  ԍAs a general matter, we note that the Commission has determined that a station's local service to cable  {Ol%-  Zcommunities can be measured, among other ways, by the coverage of its Grade B contour. See Broadcast Signal  {O6&-  Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd at 2077. See also Amendment of Section 76.51 (OrlandoDaytona Beach, Melbourne,  {O'-  and Cocoa Beach, Florida), 102 FCC 2d at 1070 ("We believe that television stations actually do or logically can"'!,`(`()'" rely on the area within their Grade B contour for economic support.")  In this case, however,"X",`(`(88"  S-  WBPX does not place either a Grade A or a Grade B contour over the cable communities.#XD3 yO-  ԍWe 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. Therefore,   we conclude that WBPX does not meet this statutory factor. It is true that WBPX potentially could have   a new Grade B contour that would partially cover the cable communities. Under that possible new Grade   B contour, however, only a few communities would lie within that contour, others would lie at the edge   =of the proposed Grade B contour, while the majority of the communities would fall outside the Grade B   contour. Presently, however, the proposed new Grade B contour is only an eventuality. In the past, in   deciding ADI modification requests, we have considered the fact that broadcast stations were in the   process of upgrading their facilities. In the instant case, however, it does not appear that WBPX is "in   the process." Indeed, the record indicates that its 1995 construction permit has expired and that it cannot   obtain an occupancy permit because of certain zoning matters. As a result, the completion of the upgrade process is uncertain.  S -  19.` ` With respect to programming service, WBPX has not shown that it carries programming   \of specific local interest or import for cable viewers in the communities in question. The information   concerning WBPX's current programming, as part of the PaxTV network, indicates that those offerings   may have some potential general interest to the cable communities, but with no specific ties to the   communities at issue in this matter. Although, WBPX asks that we take into consideration recent changes   in its programming format, we cannot conclude that it is a "local station," based upon current   programming or 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. As we have previously   concluded, we are unable to base our market modification decisions on programming that may or may not  S-  /be aired at some future date.$D3 {O -ԍSee TCI Cablevision of Texas v. Paxson Houston License, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 12031, 12039 (1997). In the instant case, not even a description or proposal for future local programming was submitted.  S@-  $20.` ` With regard to the third statutory factor whether other stations eligible to be carried   serve the communities in question in general, we do not believe that Congress intended this third   criterion to operate as a bar to a station's ADI claim whenever other stations could also be shown to serve   Lthe communities at issue. Rather, we believe that this criterion was intended to enhance a station's claim  S-where it could be shown that other stations do not serve the communities at issue.z%DD3 {O-ԍSee TV Alabama, Inc. and RKZ Television, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 9784, 9792 (1997).z  SP-  21.` ` With regard to viewership, the Commission has stated that it generally takes up to three  S(-  years for new stations to establish viewing patterns.`&(D3 {O#-ԍDeSoto Broadcasting, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 4491 (1995).` Therefore, this factor does not count as much as   other factors. As a consequence, we will not weigh heavily WBPX's viewership levels. However, we   note that even after two years on the air, the Station has no measurable viewing audience in the communities at issue. " h &,`(`(88"Ԍ S-  $22.` ` We have carefully considered each statutory factor in the context of the circumstances  S-  =presented here.d'\D3 {O@-  JԍWe are under no obligation to give particular weight to any particular one of the several statutory factors. See  {O -  <Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 56 F. 3rd 151, 175 (D.C. Cir. 1995);  Accord Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F. 3d 620, 633634 (D.C. Cir. 1996).d When taken together, however, we believe that Greater Worcester has established that   the communities at issue are not part of WBPX's ADI. The lack of historical carriage, the lack of an   overtheair signal over the cable communities, the lack of a Grade B contour coverage, the lack of other local service or targeted programming, and the lack of viewing patterns weigh against WBPX.  S-  o23.` ` Because we have granted the petition to delete the communities identified in footnote 1 above from WBPX's market, the associated petition for reconsideration is rendered moot.  S-1' ORDERING CLAUSES ă  SH -  24.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to  614(h) of the Communications Act of   1934, as amended (47 U.S.C.  534) and  76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.59, that the  S -  {captioned petition for special relief filed June 30, 1998 by Greater Worcester Cablevision, Inc. IS  S -GRANTED .  S -  125.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Bureau's June 2, 1998 mustcarry Order, DA 98 SZ-1028, CSR5212M IS RESCINDED , and the associated Petition for Reconsideration IS DISMISSED .  S -26.` ` This action is taken pursuant to  0.321 of the Commission's Rules.=( D3 yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  0.321.= ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VDeborah E. Klein, Acting Chief ` `  hh,VConsumer Protection and Competition Division ` `  hh,VCable Services Bureau