WPC; 2?BJ%<Courier3|a #&a\  P6G;r&P#Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;PYX@Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italicr&P#2,qK ZCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;XP##&a\  P6G;r&P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2k kK  v[a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2[tw  BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2u  9 a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2 wPPa7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2R`a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2[Oa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2#3e")#Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"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\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"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\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\24Kw+K-K 0KX2"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;2\c8; y.X80,QwX\  P6G;P 7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP 2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,d[&e4  pG;& 0_=5,%]&_*f9 xr G;&X P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP H5!,x,5\  P6G;,P {,W80,%~UW*f9 xr G;X y.\80,G\4  pG; S( X    S( Y Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 991410 ă  yxdddy P #&a\  P6G;r&P#Before the YFederal Communications Commission  S("Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S`(In the Matter of: ,hhh) ` `  ,hhh)  S(Texas Cable Partners, L.P.hhh)CSR5384A  S(d/b/a Paragon Cable ,hhh) ` `  ,hhh)  S(For Modification of Market of Stationhh)  Sp(KTAQ, Channel 47, Greenville, TXhh ) ` `  ,hhh)  S (G  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER x  S (X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:xR 5 {Oj'(ԍOpposition at 4.> KTAQ also argues that on"x,`(`(88"  xFebruary 12, l999, the Commission granted KTAQ a construction permit to increase its effective radiated  xpower, and that its new predicted Grade B contour covers Lewisville, Coppell, and Irving, and that the  S( xtfourth community, Grapevine, is on the fringe of the new Grade B contour.>5 {O(ԍOpposition at 6.> In addition, KTAQ argues  xthat the communities in question are within 4145 miles from the station's transmitter site to the closest  x border of each of the communities. KTAQ also contends that it produces and broadcasts a religious  xprogram, aired 9 hours per week, which includes commentaries on specific issues and events occurring  S( xwithin and in the general area of the communities in question.:Z5 {O (ԍId. at 910.: KTAQ argues that because it is providing  xlocal programming, Paragon's carriage of other stations providing local service is irrelevant. Discussing  xaudience share, KTAQ asserts that the Nielsen Report cited by Paragon does not state that KTAQ has no  xaudience in the communities at issue, but that the report states that the station does not meet the  Sp( x"minimum reporting standards" for reporting purposes.?p5 {O (ԍOpposition at 14.? KTAQ, nevertheless, argues that audience share  xdoes not count as much as annual sales data when a home shopping station is involved in a market  xLmodification dispute; in this instance, KTAQ has generated between $750,000 and $1,250,000 in annual  S (sales through its home shopping programming seen in the DallasFt. Worth area.8 ~5 {O(ԍId. at 15.8  S ( ` d11.` ` In reply, Paragon reiterates that it has never carried KTAQ nor any other television station  xoperating in the same general area as KTAQ. Paragon also asserts that KTAQ based its mileage  x0calculations on the distance from its transmitter site to the respective communities, rather than its  S0( xBcommunity of license.vX05 yO( x ԍParagon contends that KTAQ's mileage calculations are unsupported and are not correct. Paragon argues that  x the distances between KTAQ's transmitter site and the Paragon cable communities are as follows: Coppell 51.9 miles; Grapevine 56.5 miles; Irving 53.18 miles; and Lewisville 49.92 miles.v Paragon contends that the actual distances from the transmitter site are greater  S( xfthan those represented by KTAQ.90 5 {O(ԍReply at 3.9 Paragon argues that although the Commission has authorized an  xincrease in effective radiated power for KTAQ since the cable operator's filing of its petition, the station  xdoes not now provide such coverage, and there is no indication when, or if, KTAQ will implement the  x~authorized power increase. Paragon argues that KTAQ is "conspicuously silent on its plans for the power  xjincrease, which suggests that the activation date is not imminent," and argues that the Bureau should rely  xon KTAQ's signal strength as now provided to viewers rather than base a decision on speculative coverage  S( xareas.9 5 {Oz"(ԍReply at 4.9 Paragon continues that KTAQ's new predicted coverage contour reveals that the proposed Grade  xjB contour does not cover Lewisville and bisects Coppell, and that the contour clearly falls short of Irving  xand Grapevine, where Paragon's headend is located. Paragon also argues that the station fails to  xdemonstrate how its programming can be considered local, and how programming from other area stations  Sx( xdoes not serve the local needs of subscribers in the cable communities.9xT 5 {Ol'(ԍId. at 78.9 Paragon also discounts KTAQ's"x,`(`(88z"  x`home shopping sales data, arguing that sales transactions have occurred throughout the entire Dallas area  xand that such sales figures hardly represent evidence of sustained viewership in the cable communities.  xjParagon further argues that KTAQ's sales map establishes that no sales for home shopping services have  S(occurred in the cable communities in question.85 {O(ԍId.at 89.8  S8(W ANALYSIS AND DECISION ă  S( ` 12. ` ` We grant Paragon' modification request. Based on geography and other relevant  x8information, we believe that the cable communities herein are sufficiently removed from KTAQ that the  S( xVcommunities ought not be deemed part of the station's market for mandatory carriage purposes._Z5 yO (ԍH.R. Rep. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 9798 (1992). _ As an  x4initial matter, we note that, according to the legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act, the use of ADI  x8market areas is intended "to ensure that television stations be carried in the areas which they service and  S ( xwhich form their economic market."8 5 {O(ԍId. at 97.8 Changes may be sought and granted by the Commission "to better  S ( xeffectuate the purposes" of the mandatory carriage requirements.= |5 yO(ԍ47 U.S.C. 534(h).= The market change process  xincorporated into the Communications Act, however, is not intended to be a process whereby cable  xoperators may seek relief from the mandatory signal carriage obligations apart from the question of  x\whether a change in the market area involved is warranted. When viewed against this backdrop, and  x considering all of the relevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that Paragon's deletion  xpetition appears to be a legitimate request to redraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous with market  xzrealities. Paragon's actions do not reflect an intention to avoid its signal carriage responsibilities under  xthe 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's rules, nor do they evidence a pattern of discriminatory conduct against the station.  Sh(3 Historic Carriage ă  S( ` Ԋ13. ` ` KTAQ began operation in 1994. Despite being ontheair for nearly five years, it has no  xhistory of carriage on Paragon' system. Given the statutory directive, weight must be given to this factor,  xbut that must be done bearing in mind that the objective of the Section 614(h) process is to "better  xeffectuate the purposes" of the broadcast signal carriage scheme. Thus, with respect to the question of  x0historical carriage patterns, attention must be paid to the circumstances from which such patterns  xdeveloped. Some stations have not had the opportunity to build a record of historical carriage for specific  xreasons that do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to the geography of the market involved. Therefore,  xfthe historical carriage factor to the extent such lack of carriage is reflective of factors outside of the  xBshape of the market is not by itself controlling in these circumstances because such an implementation  xof the 1992 Cable Act would, in effect, prevent weaker stations, that cable systems had previously  xdeclined to carry, from ever obtaining carriage rights. We recognize that other cable systems in the  xgeneral vicinity of Paragon' systems carry KTAQ. However, it does not appear that there is a widespread  xcarriage pattern of KTAQ in the general area served by Paragon. As such, the evidence relating to this"8 ,`(`(88`"  xzstatutory factor, as it pertains directly to Paragon' systems, does weigh in favor of excluding the cable communities from KTAQ's market, but is not outcome determinative by itself.  S(l Grade B Coverage/Local Service  S8( ` .14. ` ` A station's local service to cable communities is one of the relevant factors to consider  x&in this particular case that is not influenced by the type or age of the station involved or historical  xcarriage. Service may be measured through geographic means: by examining the distance between the  xstation and the cable communities subject to the deletion request and taking into account natural  xphenomena such as waterways, mountains and valleys which tend to separate communities. A station's  xLbroadcast of local programming, which has a distinct nexus to the cable communities, is also evidence of  xLlocal service. Finally, a station's Grade A or Grade B contour coverage is an additional indicator of local  S ( xservice and we will weigh the presence or absence of such technical coverage accordingly.W 6( yO ( x(ԍAs a general matter, Grade B coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure of  {OP ( xza station's natural economic market. See Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd at 2977. See also  {O( xhAmendment of Section 76.51 (OrlandoDaytona BeachMelbourne, and Cocoa, Florida), 102 FCC 2d at 1070 ("We  xbelieve that television stations actually do or logically can rely on the area within their Grade B contours for economic support.").W In the instant  xproceeding, KTAQ does not satisfy any of the local coverage elements we find important in the market  x`modification analysis. First, KTAQ, which broadcasts primarily in a home shopping format, does not air  x>programming that could be considered "local" to the cable communities at issue. KTAQ provides no  xevidence that the commentaries provided by the station's owner during the program "Miracles Today"  xbis directed to, or involves in any way, the communities in question as contrasted with other Texas  xcommunities within or outside the market. Second, although KTAQ has been authorized to increase its  xeffective radiated power, we note that the station has provided no information regarding its intention to  S( xdo so.|6( {O( xxԍA television broadcast station has three years in which to complete modifications to its license. See 47 C.F.R. 73.3598. Even if the station were to effect an increase, it is not clear from the information supplied by KTAQ that its Grade B contour would cover the cable communities in question.  Sh( Carriage of Other Stations ă  S( ` 15. ` ` We also believe that Paragon' carriage of other local television stations provides support  xfor the action requested. Where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory carriage rights  xin certain communities, the issue of local coverage by other stations becomes a factor to which we will  xgive greater weight than in cases where a party is seeking to add communities. In this case, we find the  xDallasFt. Worth stations carried by Paragon have a closer nexus to the cable systems herein than does  x8KTAQ. These market facts, coupled with the distance between the cable systems and KTAQ, supports Paragon's market modification request under the third factor.  S(2 Viewership ă  S( ` j16. ` ` Paragon also shows that KTAQ has no audience, despite being listed by Nielsen, in the  xcable communities at issue. This dearth of viewership is of evidentiary significance when tied with the  x8lack of both historical carriage and Grade B coverage. While, in certain circumstances a home shopping"8,`(`(88$"  xstation could conceivably indicate an audience by other means, such as local sales figures, we find that  x$KTAQ's showing in this proceeding falls short because it did not adequately demonstrate that it has sold  xmerchandise in or near the Paragon cable communities. Nonetheless, as KTAQ correctly notes that the  xCommission has recognized that specialty stations, such as itself, typically attract limited audiences and thus the ability to rely on this factor is somewhat reduced.  S(g Summary ă  S( ` B17. ` ` We have carefully considered each statutory factor in the context of the circumstances  x\presented here. Given the evidence as to the lack of Grade B coverage, the lack of viewership in the  xjcable communities at issue, the lack of carriage of KTAQ on Paragon' cable systems, and the absence of  xevidence indicating that KTAQ provides local programming, we conclude that deletion of Paragon's cable  xcommunities from KTAQ's market for mandatory carriage purposes better effectuates the purposes of  S (Section 614of the Communications Act.   S (1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  SX( ` P18.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Section 614(h) of the Communications Act  xof 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C.  534) and Section 76.59 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R.  76.59),  xthat the captioned petition for special relief filed February 24, l999 by Texas Cable Partners, d/b/a Paragon  S(Cable IS GRANTED . ,  S( ` <19.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's  Sh(rules.= h6( yO(ԍ47 C.F.R.  0.321.= ` `  ,hhhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  ,hhhWilliam H. Johnson, Deputy Chief ` `  ,hhhCable Services Bureau