******************************************************** 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: ) ) WRNN-TV Associates Limited ) CSR-5392-A Partnership ) ) For Modification of the New York,) New York ADI Market ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: August 13, 1999 Released: August 19, 1999 I. INTRODUCTION 1. WRNN-TV Associates Limited Partnership, licensee of Station WRNN-TV (Ch. 62), Kingston, New York ("WRNN-TV"), has filed the above-captioned petition which seeks to include 219 communities located in the counties of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schoharie, Greene, Columbia, Montgomery, Fulton, Schenectady, Washington, Hamilton, and Warren, New York; Berkshire, Massachusetts; and Bennington, Vermont. Oppositions to this request have been filed by the following: 1) Better T.V., Inc. of Bennington and Mountain Cable Company, both d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications ("Adelphia"), operator of a cable system serving 23 of the communities listed in WRNN-TV's request; 2) Harron Communications of New York, Inc. ("Harron"), operator of a system serving 27 of the communities listed in WRNN-TV's request; 3) Century Communications and TCI of New York, Inc. ("Century/TCI"), operators of cable systems serving 25 of the communities listed in WRNN-TV's request; 4) Time Warner Cable ("Time Warner"), operator of eight cable systems serving a total of 85 of the communities listed in WRNN-TV's request; 5) the Town of Day, New York; 6) the Town of Stockbridge, Massachusetts; 7) the Town of Sheffield, Massachusetts; 8) the Town of Lee, Massachusetts; 9) Christopher Hodgkins, State Representative for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; 10) the Town of Great Barrington, Massachusetts; 11) the Town of Lenox, Massachusetts; 12) Hearst-Argyle Stations, Inc., licensee of Stations WNNE-TV (NBC, Ch. 31), Hartford, Vermont, and WPTZ (NBC, Ch. 5), North Pole, New York ("Hearst- Argyle"); 13) Freedom Broadcasting of New York, Inc., licensee of Station WRGB (NBC, Ch. 6), Schenectady, New York ("WRGB"); 14) Young Broadcasting of Albany, Inc., licensee of Stations WTEN (ABC, Ch. 10), Albany, New York, and WCDC (CBS, Ch. 19), Adams, Massachusetts ("Young"); and 15) Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station WNYT (CBS, Ch. 13), Albany, New York ("WNYT"). WRNN-TV has filed a consolidated reply to all of the oppositions. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in 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)(1)(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 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 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 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 demonstrated 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. 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 Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request. III. THE PLEADINGS 7. WRNN-TV is located within the New York, New York ADI. The counties of Albany, Columbia, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, and Washington, New York, Berkshire, Massachusetts, and Bennington, Vermont, are all located in the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York, ADI. 8. In support of its request, WRNN-TV states that it is a commercial television station licensed to Kingston, New York. Although its city of license is located within the New York ADI market, WRNN-TV states that the Commission has granted a number of market modification petitions which have adversely impacted WRNN-TV by eliminating its mandatory carriage rights on cable systems serving close to 70 percent of the New York ADI. Indeed, WRNN-TV points out that in several of these decisions, the Commission recognized WRNN-TV's proximity to the Albany ADI and commented that WRNN-TV may "more aptly serve Albany and its environs." As a result, WRNN-TV states that, despite its opposition to the Commission's New York ADI decisions, it is now compelled to seek other carriage rights to mitigate the substantial loss of must carry rights and economic interests occasioned by those rulings. 9. WRNN-TV argues that it satisfies the relevant market criteria which the Commission considers for adding communities to a station's local market for must carry purposes. First, WRNN-TV states that it has historical carriage on five cable systems operating in the counties of Albany, Columbia, Greene and Schoharie, New York. WRNN-TV points out that the Commission has held that carriage by a local cable operator is "probative as to the scope of the market involved and is convincing evidence that the station's programming is of particular interest to viewers in the area." Second, WRNN-TV maintains that its Grade B contour extends as far north as Schenectady County in New York, west into Delaware and Sullivan Counties, New York, and east into Bennington County, Vermont, and Hampshire and Hampden Counties, Massachusetts. WRNN-TV states that not only are all of the subject cable communities located within, on the fringe, or in close proximity to its Grade B contour, but the majority are located within its Grade A contour. WRNN-TV states that the Commission has concluded that a station which demonstrates "that [it] places at least a Grade B coverage contour over the cable communit[ies]" satisfies the second criterion for market modification. 10. Further, WRNN-TV argues that its all-news format provides a unique service to the Albany area by providing approximately 70 hours per week of original news programming centered, in part, on Albany-wide regional news issues. WRNN-TV points out that it follows local school closings, and airs news stories on issues regarding local high school students, weather, sports and politics. WRNN-TV asserts that this type of local news coverage is consistent with Congress' "primary objective" in enacting the must carry rules of promoting the local origination of broadcast programming. Finally, WRNN-TV argues that it is "significantly viewed" in several of the counties in the which the cable communities are located. WRNN-TV maintains that this is proof that it has, for years, enjoyed a substantial following within communities in the Albany ADI. Moreover, WRNN-TV states that not only is it listed in the television program guides of at least five newspapers serving the cable communities, but from 1996 to 1998, it received over $680,000 in revenue from advertisers located in the Albany area. 11. There are fifteen opposing petitions. Six individual Massachusetts towns (Day, Stockbridge, Sheffield, Lee, Great Barrington and Lenox), and one Massachusetts state representative all object to WRNN- TV's petition on the sole basis that WRNN-TV's programming is of no interest to their residents. As they raise no further argument, they are not included in the summary below. The remaining eight opposing parties, four cable operators (Adelphia, Harron, Century/TCI, and Time Warner), and four full power television stations (WNNE-TV/WPTZ ("Hearst-Argyle"), WRGB, WTEN/WCDC ("Young"), and WNYT), have basically similar objections to WRNN-TV's modification request. All the parties argue that the Commission is mandated by Congress to take into account the four criteria set forth in Section 614(h)(C)(ii) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in any analysis of market modification requests and any party seeking such modification must provide sufficient evidence to satisfy those factors. All parties agree that WRNN-TV has failed to demonstrate that it meets any of the criteria necessary to justify grant of its request in this instance. A. Historic Carriage 12. The opposing cable operators all point out that WRNN-TV has never been carried on their respective cable systems. Time Warner states that the small amount of historic carriage that WRNN-TV can claim in Greene and Columbia Counties involves only five cable systems serving 37 communities. Time Warner argues that such a limited showing falls far short of establishing carriage rights on the remainder of the cable systems in the Albany market. Moreover, both Time Warner and Adelphia state that WRNN-TV has not shown that it is carried on any other cable systems in close proximity. WRGB points out that Greene and Columbia Counties are the southernmost counties in the Albany market and the communities in those counties where WRNN-TV has historic carriage are not only in the southernmost portions of those counties, but are located adjacent to WRNN-TV's transmitter site. WNYT asserts that evidence of historic carriage, standing alone, is not determinative. Hearst-Argyle maintains that WRNN-TV's contention that lack of historical carriage is immaterial is in error. It argues that the Commission always considers historical carriage in modification petitions seeking addition of communities. B. Viewership 13. All the parties note that WRNN-TV has no reportable viewership in the majority of the counties where the communities requested for inclusion are located. Young states that it commissioned two separate studies from Nielsen Media Research ("Nielsen") -- one to examine county-wide viewership patterns in the Albany market in both cable and noncable homes for February 1999 and the other to examine only noncable households for November 1998 and February 1999. Young points out that these studies indicate no viewership for WRNN-TV in any of the counties except for Columbia and Greene and even for those counties the reported viewership is minimal when compared to its own station, WTEN. Both Adelphia and Century/TCI state that studies produced by Media Strategies indicate that WRNN-TV has no viewership in the respective counties in which their cable systems operate. 14. All of the parties argue that WRNN-TV's reliance on its significantly viewed status in Columbia and Greene counties and its listing in several local newspapers has no overall relevance to the market as a whole. Time Warner asserts that WRNN-TV has failed to show any specific viewership data to satisfy the fourth modification factor. A number of parties point out that the newspapers in which WRNN-TV is listed are small papers which circulate only in Columbia nd Greene counties. WNYT states that while the Commission has accepted listings in local newspapers and publications as one additional factor, it has never accepted such listings in place of concrete audience data. Moreover, WNYT and Young point to the fact that half of the newspaper listings provided by WRNN-TV identify the station by its former call letters, WTZA, which raises the question of whether WRNN-TV is still listed or if there is a lack of interest. Time Warner states that WRNN-TV is completely absent from the Albany market's three largest daily newspapers: The Time Union (Albany), The Daily Gazette (Schenectady), and The Record (Troy). Century/TCI indicates that WRNN-TV is not listed in the western Massachusetts and Albany editions of TV Guide. C. Grade B Coverage 15. All of the parties contest WRNN-TV's assertion that it provides Grade B coverage to a majority of the subject communities. Harron states that WRNN-TV generalizes the extent of its Grade B coverage and Century/TCI argues that WRNN-TV's Grade B contour does not accurately reflect the station's local signal quality, which is far from ideal. Harron and Century/TCI states that all of the communities they serve are outside of WRNN-TV's predicted Grade B contour. Time Warner, Adelphia and Hearst-Argyle argue that although some of the communities they serve fall within WRNN-TV's Grade B contour, this factor alone is insufficient grounds to grant WRNN-TV's request. Indeed, Adelphia states that legislative history governing the modification process shows that ADI boundaries, and not Grade B contours, define markets. Young points out that approximately 61 percent of the requested communities are not within WRNN-TV's Grade B contour. Young maintains that absence of Grade B coverage militates against grant of WRNN-TV's request. 16. A majority of the parties raise geographic distance factors in support of their oppositions. WRGB states that over 130 of the requested communities are between 45-165 miles distant from Kingston, WRNN-TV's city of license, and that these distances were sufficient for the Commission to deny other similar requests. Young states that at least 116 of the communities are located farther than 50 miles from Kingston. Harron, Adelphia, Century/TCI and Time Warner all cite geographic distances as a major factor in WRNN- TV's failure to have a nexus with their system communities. 17. One party, WNYT, argues that WRNN-TV's predicted service area using the Longley-Rice method is substantially less than the station's calculated Grade B contour. WNYT asserts that hilly topography precludes off-air reception of WRNN-TV in much of the area in which it seeks carriage. Indeed, WNYT maintains that the Albany region's topography prevents WRNN-TV from being received at least 99 percent of the communities. WNYT states that in Costa de Oro, Inc., the Commission based its partial denial of the requested modification on the fact that opponents to the petition had provided evidence that there was no viewable over-the-air signal within the applicant's predicted Grade B contour. D. Local Programming 18. At least half of the parties state that WRNN-TV provides no evidence of relevant local programming, while the remainder state that any programming that WRNN-TV does provide is minimal at best, and in general, of more wide-spread than specific interest. For instance, Century/TCI states that the two news items WRNN-TV attributes to Scotia, New York, do not target specific TCI communities. Harron states that WRNN-TV lists only one news story involving only one out of 28 Harron system communities. Adelphia points out that WRNN-TV's own exhibit reveals that in over 3 years, WRNN-TV has carried only one story about Adelphia communities. Adelphia states that in Home Link Communications of Princeton, the Commission concluded that WRNN-TV's claim to "seven to eight substantial news stories per day" was insufficient to prevent it from being excluded from the cable communities that were within its ADI. Hearst- Argyle states that there are only 3 news stories cited that even remotely relate to its system communities. WNYT states that the bulk of the program listing provided by WRNN-TV is targeted to the Catskill area, which includes the areas closest to WRNN-TV and where it is already carried. WRGB points out that half of the 87 news reports claimed to be Albany-based are issues of state-wide interest involving state politics or professional sports while the remaining 79, for areas outside Greene and Columbia counties, relate to only 16 of the total communities. Young concludes that the programming information provided by WRNN-TV has gaping holes in its asserted local coverage and many of the core market communities, such as Schenectady and Troy, have never been provided any local coverage. E. Coverage by Other Local Stations 19. Many of the parties argue that the instant communities already receive ample local programming from the stations they currently receive. Adelphia states that it carries seven must carry stations, all licensed to communities closer than Kingston, which provide its subscribers with more focused local programming. Harron states that it carries 13 stations licensed to communities closer than Kingston, seven of which provide daily local coverage. WRGB states that not only is WRNN-TV's absence of local programming in stark contrast to the presentation made by other stations, but it makes no claim that other stations fail to provide local programming. WNYT argues that WRNN-TV is wrong in its assertion that programming by other stations is irrelevant. WNYT states that while the Commission has interpreted this provision as an "enhancement factor," petitioners still bear the burden of persuasion in demonstrating why the Commission should redraw established boundaries. WNYT concludes that WRNN-TV's failure to do so demonstrates that it has not met its burden of persuasion. F. Other Arguments 20. Several of the parties object to WRNN-TV's request because, if granted, WRNN-TV will be carried in the core of the Albany market. This they maintain would eliminate the existence of two different markets rather than represent a modification as contemplated by the rules. Time Warner states that WRNN- TV seeks to invade the heart and fringes of the adjacent Albany ADI. Indeed, Time Warner points out, WRNN-TV's request encompasses all 14 counties comprising the Albany market. WRGB asserts that there is no basis for granting WRNN-TV such broad must carry rights outside its market, simply because it has lost ground in its market, particularly when it has made no effort to serve the requested area. Adelphia maintains that, in essence, WRNN-TV is asking the Commission to extend its market beyond the over 2 million households it is currently eligible to serve because its Grade B encompasses some of the subject communities. However, Adelphia argues that a grant of WRNN-TV's request would be tantamount to a complete redrawing of the New York and Albany ADI boundaries, something the Commission has made clear is well beyond its intended bounds. Adelphia points out further that WRNN-TV's claim of losing 70 percent of its market to adverse decisions obscures the fact that in a market such as New York, with 6,749,500 TV households, a 70% reduction still leaves WRNN-TV with 2,024,850 households. Adelphia argues that, with the exception of 4 ADIs, a market of over 2 million homes is larger than nearly every other ADI in the country. 21. Harron argues that it is ironic that WRNN-TV relies on previous Commission decisions which imply that the station may "more aptly serve Albany and its environs" when it has always vehemently opposed any suggestion of doing so. Indeed, Harron points out, in Home Link Communications of Princeton, L.P. and ComVideo Systems, Inc., WRNN-TV argued the opposite when it "urge[d] that this . . . statement was incorrect and that the Commission wrongly stated that Nielsen has assigned WRNN to the Albany DMA." In any event, WRGB argues that the quote WRNN-TV relies on herein about serving the Albany market was taken out of context and is misleading. WRGB states that in the case from which it was cited, WRNN-TV lost "must carry" rights in New Jersey cable communities served by Comcast Cablevision. WRGB indicates that the basis for comparison appears to have been Comcast's pleading, in which it claimed that WRNN-TV "provides coverage of importance to its local viewers in the upstate New York counties of Ulster and Dutchess, instead of providing local service and coverage of the New York City area." 22. A majority of the parties point out that the advertising revenue information provided by WRNN-TV is inadequate to measure the station's importance in the Albany market. Time Warner states that WRNN-TV does not indicate the relative importance of the advertising revenue it receives from the Albany market in relation to its overall advertising sales. WRGB argues, therefore, that there is no basis for comparison with the advertising revenues from WRNN-TV's home market. Moreover, Time Warner argues that all or a substantial percentage of the Albany market revenue of WRNN-TV could be attributed solely to advertisers located in Greene and Columbia counties. Century/TCI, WRGB, and Harron argue that WRNN- TV fails to break down the advertising revenue by community or county and it is too general to demonstrate any nexus to the communities. WNYT states that the revenue data reveals nothing about WRNN-TV's audience and that it reflects the fact that some businesses in the Albany market also have businesses in the Kingston area. Finally, both Time Warner and WNYT point out that the total advertising revenues reported by WRNN-TV dropped significantly from 1997 to 1998, suggesting a decline in WRNN-TV's status. 23. Finally, Adelphia argues that since all of its affected cable systems are channel-locked, grant of WRNN-TV's petition would result in the deletion of popular cable programming valued by its subscribers. Since its subscribers already receive Albany must carry stations and a New York City station via retransmission consent, Adelphia maintains that a grant of the instant request would undermine the Commission's long-standing policy of increasing program diversity. 24. In a consolidated reply, WRNN-TV maintains that it meets the four statutory factors and that grant of its petition is warranted. WRNN-TV states that not only is it historically carried on several cable systems serving communities in Albany, Columbia, Greene and Schoharie counties, but several Albany ADI stations are carried on cable systems near Kingston and other communities in the New York market. Indeed, WRNN-TV points out that the Grade B coverage contours of Albany stations WTEN, WRGB, WNYT and WMHT reach well into the New York ADI from their respective communities of license. Therefore, WRNN- TV argues, these stations are direct competitors who have the advantage in that they qualify for carriage throughout the Albany ADI. Since the arguments of WTEN, WRGB and WNYT directly contradict their current carriage outside the Albany market, WRNN-TV asserts that these arguments should be disregarded. Further, while Adelphia and WRGB criticize WRNN-TV for its lack of widespread cable carriage in the Albany market, despite being licensed since 1985, WRNN-TV points out that it only acquired its current owners in December 1994 and its current format in October 1995. WRNN-TV maintains that its voluntary carriage on several Albany-based cable system is "convincing evidence that the [S]tation's programming is of particular interest to viewers in the area." 25. WRNN-TV argues that it has satisfied the second statutory factor because many of the requested communities are located within the station's City Grade, Grade A and Grade B contours. Moreover, WRNN-TV states that the Commission has also concluded that cable communities that lie on the fringe of the Grade B contour of a given station or close to the station in terms of mileage may be appropriately included within a station's local market. WRNN-TV states that several of the communities are located on the fringe or in close proximity to the Grade B contour in terms of mileage, including Schenectady, which is within a mile of the Grade B and Bennington which is partially within the Grade B. In addition, despite the assertions of several parties, WRNN-TV states that recently performed signal strength tests indicate that a good quality signal is delivered to test points in Albany, Troy, Schenectady, Rensselaer, Bennington, Pittsfield, Lee, and the Fly Summit Mountain, New York area. WRNN-TV maintains that there are no natural barriers to prevent it from providing coverage to the subject communities. Indeed, it asserts that the Hudson Valley, which runs north-south within its coverage area from Kingston to Albany and beyond, provides a natural geographic tie between the station and the communities. 26. In addition to the programming examples it submitted in its petition, WRNN-TV states that it includes Albany traffic and weather reports, which are updated every ten minutes, in each daily newscast. WRNN-TV states that it also has Albany news listed on its website. While WRNN-TV admits that for any station located near a state capital it is to be expected that many of the stories aired will be of interest to residents throughout the state, it disputes the contention raised in the oppositions that its programming is more general in nature and not community-specific. WRNN-TV states that its commitment to providing local service to the Albany market is shown by the establishment of a separate news bureau to serve that area. WRNN-TV states that it is also arranging to provide live news programming for carriage on the New York Network/State University of New York's ("NYN") "Capital Network." It points out that no other Albany television station's news is carried on NYN or provides the amount of regional news, public affairs or community interest programming that WRNN-TV provides. 27. WRNN-TV reargues that the third statutory factor regarding coverage by other stations is inapplicable to this proceeding and it urges that the relevant arguments raised by the opposing parties should be disregarded. Further, despite the claims of the opposing parties, WRNN-TV asserts that it has measurable viewer ratings in the Albany market, as evidenced by the February 1999 Nielsen report. WRNN-TV states that, assuming that the 7.4% cume rating attributed by Young's opposition to WRNN-TV in Columbia is correct, it is interesting to note that comparable ratings for CNN, MSNBC and FOX News for the same period are significantly lower. WRNN-TV continues that since nearly three quarters, or 74 percent, of the Albany market households subscribe to cable, they cannot for all practical purposes receive its signal over-the-air. Therefore, WRNN-TV argues, unless it receives cable carriage, the vast majority of viewers in the Albany ADI are not able to watch its station even if they would like to do so. Indeed, WRNN-TV states that in situations where a station has gained cable carriage in a heavily-cabled market, it has generated measurable ratings. For this reason, WRNN-TV states that the Commission should not penalize it for lower ratings in the heavily- cabled Albany market. 28. While WRGB denounces the 1989 finding of WRNN-TV as significantly viewed in Columbia and Greene counties as outdated and irrelevant, WRNN-TV maintains that the information remains accurate and an important consideration in the modification proceeding. If nothing else, WRNN-TV argues that WRNN-TV's significantly viewed status in Greene and Columbia counties favors the addition of at least the communities within those counties. Further, WRNN-TV states that it is not only listed in the "On TV" guide provided by the Times Union, but also the Albany edition of TV Guide, which is available in the Albany market for all viewers. WRNN-TV argues that these listings indicate that Albany area viewers value its presence in their market. With regard to advertising revenues, WRNN-TV states that because several oppositions criticized it failure to break down the businesses that advertised on its station, it has provided a list herein that does so. 29. Finally, WRNN-TV states that WNYT's cite to Channel 39, Inc., urging the Commission to deny the instant request because it encroaches on the core of the Albany market is misplaced and out of context. WRNN-TV states that a review of the Channel 39 decision indicates that if the Commission had granted Miami station WBZL's request to expand into the West Palm Beach ADI, it would have had to grant the inevitable requests filed by the seven other Miami stations broadcasting from the same antenna farm north of Miami. Such a result would have altered the West Palm Beach ADI by essentially merging it with the Miami ADI, an outcome not intended by Congress. In contrast, WRNN-TV argues that the addition of one independent station, isolated from the core of its own ADI, to the core of the Albany ADI will hardly impact, much less alter the basic structure of that market. WRNN-TV contends that, despite its inclusion in the New York ADI, it is tied to the Albany market in several important ways: a) the Hudson River creates a natural valley which connects Kingston with Albany; b) commuters and residents routinely travel between the two areas via Interstate 87 and the Taconic State Parkway; c) businesses in the Hudson Valley area near Kingston routinely advertise through Albany-market media and vice versa; and d) Albany market stations are carried on several cable systems located near Kingston. Given these facts, WRNN-TV concludes that the Commission should grant its request. IV. DISCUSSION 30. WRNN-TV is seeking to add 219 communities located in 14 counties in New York, Massachusetts and Vermont to its New York ADI. WRNN-TV argues that it sufficiently meets the criteria with regard to local service and local programming to be considered a local station for the communities in question. The opposing parties deny this. Based on our analysis of the evidence relating to the four statutory and other relevant factors, WRNN-TV's petition will be granted in part and denied in part. 31. New York is the nation's most populous television market. Geographically, the market encompasses some 29 counties in four states. It is roughly 170 miles long and 150 miles wide, stretching north into Ulster County and the Catskill Mountains and down to the New Jersey coastal counties of Monmouth and Ocean in the south; Pike County, Pennsylvania is at the westernmost edge of the market which then extends eastward to include Fairfield County, CT and all of Long Island, NY. WRNN-TV, licensed to Kingston, New York, signed on-the-air in 1985 as WTZA, and broadcasts on channel 62 from a transmitter located on Overlook Mountain in Woodstock, New York. Albany, the market in which all of the requested communities are located, is, in terms of population and size, less than half that of New York, encompassing only 14 counties in three states. The requested communities range, on average, anywhere from 14 to 129 miles away from Kingston, WRNN-TV's city of license. The relationship of many of the requested communities is affected by such natural barriers as the Catskill Mountains. 32. Historic Carriage. While WRNN-TV does have a history of carriage on five cable systems serving communities located in Columbia, Greene, Albany and Schoharie counties, there is no evidence that it is carried on nearby cable systems serving the remainder of the requested communities. While carriage on nearby cable systems is not a factor specified in the statute, such carriage has been considered as demonstrating that the station at issue has a nexus with other nearby communities. In this instance, nearby carriage has not been demonstrated. It should also be noted that WRNN-TV appears to be listed only in general distribution newspapers serving Greene and Columbia Counties, the Albany edition of TV Guide and the "On TV" guide provided by Albany's Time Union newspaper. 33. Viewership. WRNN-TV has been operating as a full-power television station since 1985. It was able to achieve significantly viewed status in Columbia and Greene counties based on viewership levels it achieved within its first three years of operation. WRNN-TV is not considered to be significantly viewed in any of the other instant counties nor, except for Columbia County, does it achieve any ratings in the subject counties. We note that, due to its all-news format, WRNN-TV may have less opportunity to attract viewership than a typical commercial station. 34. Local Programming. WRNN-TV contends that its all news program format provides valuable programming services to the instant communities. However, we are not convinced that such programming, while of potential general interest, is the kind that suggests that the requested communities, in total, are a particular focus of the station or are in any sense served in a manner that establishes a specific market connection. 35. Coverage by Other Stations. In general, in instances where other stations eligible to be carried serve the communities in question, we do not believe that Congress intended this criterion to operate as a bar to a station's ADI claim whenever other stations could also be shown to serve the communities at issue. Rather, we believe that this criterion was intended to enhance a station's claim where it could be shown that other stations do not serve the communities at issue. 36. Station Coverage of Communities. With respect to coverage, the Commission stated in its Must Carry Order, supra, 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 communities or is located close to the community in terms of mileage." WRNN-TV claims that its predicted Grade B contour encompasses the majority of the requested communities. Our review, however, indicates that less than half of the subject communities either lie within or are on the fringe of WRNN-TV's Grade B contour. Moreover, we note that a Longley-Rice propagation study submitted by WNYT indicates that even within its predicted Grade B contour, WRNN-TV's signal provides spotty coverage in some areas and virtually no signal is provided in areas outside the station's Grade B contour. V. CONCLUSION 37. In reaching our conclusion, we have considered the statutory factors as well as other relevant information. WRNN-TV has limited historic carriage in 36 of the 219 communities in question (factor I), provides little specifically-directed local programming to the communities (factor II), and has measured audience in only one of the counties in which the communities are located. Given the statutory directive, weight must be given to these factors, but that must be done bearing in mind that the objective of the Section 614(h) process is to "better effectuate the purposes" of the broadcast signal carriage scheme. Thus, with respect to the question of historical carriage patterns, attention must be paid to the circumstances from which such patterns developed. Some stations have not had the opportunity to build a record of historical carriage for specific reasons that do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to the geography of the market involved. Given the age of WRNN-TV and the terrain involved, however, that does not appear to be the circumstance here. 38. Given the difficulties of relying exclusively and explicitly on the statutory factors of historical carriage and viewing patterns, which in certain circumstances could severely narrow the carriage rights of stations even within what is undeniably their local market area, we have found it helpful to focus also on factors that are less influenced by the type of station involved or historical carriage, especially in instances such as here when the station had a specialty format. The scope of a local station's market may be measured through geographic means by examining the distance between the station and the cable communities subject to the request and by taking into account natural phenomena such as waterways, mountains, and valleys that may tend to separate communities and define natural markets -- basic geographic, demographic and political features that provide the best available evidence of the market boundaries of the stations involved. In the absence of other information, station service contours also provide at least one objective measure of the scope of a station's local market. In the case herein, we find that, in view of the natural barriers inherent in the region in which the requested communities are located, WRNN-TV's predicted Grade B contour alone cannot be relied on as an accurate representation of the station's actual over-the-air coverage or the scope of its market. Longley-Rice propagation studies, however, take such factors as terrain into account and can be of help in determining a station's actual service area. Moreover, since such studies have been used in a variery of contexts, including both analog and digital television, and are generally useful in demonstrating the effects of irregular terrain, we find their use of probative value in modification cases. We therefore accept WNYT's Longley-Rice submission as supporting evidence in this case. 39. Upon review, we do not agree with WRNN-TV that it provides a Grade B or better signal to a majority of the communities. Relying solely on WRNN-TV's Grade B coverage, it is evident that only five of the 14 counties are encompassed by the station's Grade B contour, either wholly or in major part. In addition, small portions of two other counties lie just within the Grade B contour. That leaves 7 counties, and the majority of two others, completely outside WRNN-TV's Grade B contour. If one looks at the Longley- Rice propagation study presented, WRNN-TV's coverage shrinks even further. Outside of Columbia County and portions of Greene and Rensselaer County, WRNN-TV's coverage appears spotty at best, while the majority of counties appear to receive no Grade B service at all. Such spotty coverage is a clear indication that the natural barriers found in a majority of the region precludes over-the-air reception of WRNN-TV's signal in all but a few instances. Adding this factor to WRNN-TV's lack of historic carriage in a majority of the communities, and its general lack of specific programming and viewership, we conclude that it cannot be used to justify grant of WRNN-TV's request for communities located in the counties of Rennselaer, Saratoga, Schoharie, Albany, Montgomery, Fulton, Schenectady, Washington, Hamilton, and Warren, New York; Berkshire, Massachusetts; and Bennington, Vermont. For communities in the counties of Greene and Columbia, New York, however, the factors weigh in favor of a grant, particulary given the close geographic distance and historic carriage. Moreover, WRNN-TV appears to provide a consistent over-the-air signal to this region. In addition, while we decline to grant WRNN-TV its request relative to all of the requested communities in the counties of Schoharie and Albany, New York, we grant WRNN-TV's request with regard to the six communities in these two counties in which it is historically carried. Those communities are Bethlehem, Coeymans, Ravena Village and Westerlo in Albany County, and Summit and Jefferson in Schoharie County. In general, we find that the areas we grant today, where WRNN-TV is historically carried, defines the limit of their market to the southernmost portion of the Albany ADI. Because the counties of Greene and Columbia and the six specified communities cannot be said to constitute the core of the Albany market, there is little danger that the limited grant of must carry rights to WRNN-TV will pose serious harm to the structure of the Albany market as a whole. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 40. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534(h) and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59, that the petition for special relief (CSR-5392-A) filed on behalf of WRNN-TV Associates Limited Partnership IS GRANTED IN PART with respect to the communities of Bethlehem, Coeymans, Ravena Village Westerlo, Summit, Jefferson, Durham, Athens Village, Athens, Cairo, Catskill Village, Catskill, Coxsackie Village, Coxsackie, Greenville, New Baltimore, Tannersville Village, Hunter, Hunter Village, Jewett, Lexington, Claverack, Gallatin, Greenport, Hudson, Livingston, Philmont Village, Stockport, Clermont, Germantown, Ancram, Chatham Village, Chatham, Austerlitz, Canaan, Hillsdale, Ghent, Copake, New Lebanon, Kinderhook Village, Stuyvesant Village, Valatie Village, and Kinderhook, New York, and IS OTHERWISE DENIED. 41. 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 APPENDIX The communities listed in WRNN-TV's petition are the following: Distance to Community County CUID Kingston^ Albany Albany, NY NY0338 52 Altamont Village " " NY1172 54 Berne (Town) " " NY1567 48 Cohoes " " NY0582 60 Colonie (Town) " " NY0336 55 Colonie Village " " NY0335 55 Green Island Village " " NY0670 59 Guilderland (Town) " " NY0337 54 Knox (Town) " " NY1566 52 Menands Village " " NY0339 54 Watervliet " " NY0340 57 Rensselaerville (Town) " " NY1546 41 Bethlehem (Town) " " NY1188 -- Coeymans (Town) " " NY0677 39 Ravena Village " " NY1191 39 Westerlo (Town) " " NY1584 40 Latham** " " NY0644 58 New Scotland** " " NY0980 48 Loudonville#** " " -- 55 Brunswick (Town) Rensselaer, NY NY0509 60 East Greenbush (Town) " " NY0596 48 Pittstown (Town) " " NY1534 68 Schaghticoke (Town) " " NY0796 70 Schaghticoke Village " " NY0996 70 Troy " " NY0352 58 Valley Falls Village " " NY1167 71 Berlin (Town) " " NY1583 62 Hoosick Falls Village " " NY1118 75 Hoosick (Town) " " NY1117 73 N. Hoosick (area) " " NY1270 77 Rensselaer " " NY0639 51 North Greenbush " " NY0616 -- Clifton Park (Town) Saratoga, NY NY0668 65 Halfmoon (Town) " " NY0742 64 Mechanicville " " NY0643 69 Stillwater (Town) " " NY0836 73 Stillwater Village " " NY0837 73 Waterford (Town) " " NY0589 62 Waterford Village " " NY0588 62 Galway (Town) " " NY1595 75 Galway Village " " NY1630 75 Corinth Village " " NY0698 91 Corinth (Town) " " NY0957 91 Hadley (Town) " " NY1322 96 Moreau (Town) " " NY0540 -- Day (Town) " " NY1562 -- Edinburg (Town) " " NY1561 89 Ballston (Town) " " NY0800 -- Charlton (Town) " " NY0928 69 Ballston Spa Village " " NY0689 75 Greenfield (Town) " " NY0686 81 Malta (Town) " " NY0852 73 Milton (Town) " " NY0650 -- Round Lake Village " " NY0853 70 Saratoga Springs " " NY0397 79 Wilton (Town) " " NY0688 87 S. Glen Falls Village " " NY0388 -- Northumberland (Town) " " NY1376 85 Saratoga (Town) " " NY1168 -- Schuylerville Village " " NY0993 84 Victory Mills Village " " NY0994 83 Wright (Town) Schoharie, NY NY1586 -- Blenheim (Town) " " NY1663 -- Broome (Town) " " NY1664 41 Fulton (Town)* " " NY1665/ -- NY1234 Middleburgh (Town)* " " NY1666/ 49 MY1238 Schoharie (Town)* " " NY1668/ 53 NY0984 Schoharie Village* " " NY1669/ 53 NY0985 Summit (Town)* " " NY1670/ 54 NY1517 Cobleskill Village " " NY0987 57 Cobleskill (Town) " " NY0986 57 Esperance Village " " NY1303 59 Esperance (Town) " " NY1233 59 Middleburgh Village " " NY0069 49 Richmondville Village " " NY0988 57 Richmondville (Town) " " NY0989 57 Schoharie Village " " NY0985 53 Seward (Town) " " NY1235 63 Sharon Springs Village " " NY1237 68 Jefferson (Town) " " NY1548 49 Durham (Town) Greene, NY NY1545 34 Athens Village " " NY0344 25 Athens (Town) " " NY0345 25 Cairo (Town) " " NY1190 26 Catskill Village " " NY0342 21 Catskill (Town) " " NY0341 21 Coxsackie Village " " NY1192 31 Coxsackie (Town) " " NY0817 31 Greenville (Town) " " NY1264 34 New Baltimore " " NY0712 37 Tannersville Village " " NY0697 20 Hunter (Town) " " NY0698 22 Hunter Village " " NY0699 22 Jewett (Town) " " NY1450 28 Lexington (Town)* " " NY1649/ 29 NY0919/ NY0298 Claverack (Town) Columbia, NY NY1189 24 Gallatin (Town) " " NY1661 18 Greenport (Town) " " NY0569 -- Hudson " " NY0343 25 Livingston (Town) " " NY1469 18 Philmont Village " " NY0818 28 Stockport (Town) " " NY0820 29 Clermont (Town) " " NY1487 14 Germantown (Town) " " NY1204 15 Ancram (Town) " " NY1568 20 Chatham Village " " NY1569 36 Chatham (Town) " " NY1570 36 Austerlitz (Town) " " NY1571 38 Canaan (Town) " " NY1572 44 Hillsdale (Town) " " NY1573 30 Ghent (Town) " " NY1574 34 Copake (Town) " " NY1575 26 New Lebanon (Town) " " NY1582 48 Kinderhook Village " " NY1658 -- Stuyvesant Village " " NY1659 34 Valatie Village " " NY1660 37 Kinderhook (Town) " " NY1681 35 Amsterdam Montgomery, NYNY0355 71 Amsterdam (Town) " " NY0879 -- Florida (Town) " " NY0770 -- Fonda Village " " NY0696 73 Fort Johnson Village " " NY0455 72 Fultonville Village " " NY0695 73 Glen (Town) " " NY1609 69 Hagaman Vaillage " " NY0456 73 Mohawk (Town) " " NY0678 -- Root (Town)* " " NY1594 -- NY1646 Canajoharie (Town) " " NY1498 73 Canajoharie Village " " NY0253 73 Fort Plain Village " " NY0254 76 Minden (Town) " " NY1496 82 Nelliston Village " " NY0255 76 Palatine Bridge Village " " NY0257 74 Palatine (Town) " " NY1497 74 St. Johns (Town) " " NY1499 -- St. Johnsville Village " " NY0258 82 Broadalbin Village Fulton, NY NY0754 79 Broadalbin (Town) " " NY0926 79 Mayfield (Town)* " " NY0755/ 82 NY0935 Perth (Town) " " NY0746 76 Gloversville " " NY0429 79 Johnstown " " NY0428 77 Johnstown (Town) " " NY0934 -- Mayfield Village " " NY0936 82 Northville Village " " NY0971 90 Northampton (Town) " " NY1098 -- Niskayuna (Town) Schenectady, NYNY0410 61 Rotterdam (Town) " " NY0411 59 Scotia Village " " NY0412 62 Schenectady " " NY0407 60 Glenville (Town) " " NY0409 69 Delanson Village " " NY1304 57 Duanesburg (Town) " " NY1305 58 Argyle Village Washington, NY NY1613 94 Argyle (Town) " " NY1614 94 Granville Village " " NY0279 109 Middle Granville (Town) " " NY0280 110 Fort Ann (Town) " " NY1357 106 Fort Edward Village " " NY0541 95 Fort Edward (Town) " " NY0536 95 Hudson Falls Village " " NY0537 97 Kingsbury (Town) " " NY0535 102 Whitehall Village " " NY0098 116 Whitehall (Town) " " NY1539 116 Fort Ann Village " " NY1020 106 Cambridge Village " " NY0992 82 Cambridge (Town) " " NY1106 82 Easton (Town) " " NY1093 77 Greenwich Village " " NY0995 84 Greenwich (Town) " " NY1026 84 Jackson (Town) " " NY1073 -- Salem Village " " NY0091 92 Salem (Town) " " NY1072 92 Long Lake Hamilton, NY NY0229 143 Wells (Town) " " NY1273 102 Lake Pleasant (Town) " " NY1279 108 Speculator Village " " NY1353 116 Indian Lake (Town) " " NY1467 129 Johnsburg " " NY1468 -- Lake Luzerne (Town) Warren, NY NY0694 96 Queensbury (Town) " " NY0534 102 Bolton (Town) " " NY0898 112 Chester (Town) " " NY1249 -- Glen Falls " " NY0322 -- Horicon (Town) " " NY1250 -- Lake George Village " " NY0386 104 Lake George (Town) " " NY0387 104 Warrensburg (Town) " " NY0389 109 Adams (Town) Berkshire, MA MA0001 66 Cheshire (Town) " " MA0002 61 Clarksburg (Town) " " MA0003 -- North Adams " " MA0004 69 Williamstown (Town) " " MA0005 67 Great Barrington (Town) " " MA0008 38 Lee (Town) " " MA0009 46 Lenox (Town) " " MA0010 47 Stockbridge (Town) " " MA0011 43 Sheffield (Town) " " MA0346 35 Dalton (Town) " " MA0027 57 Pittsfield " " MA0028 52 Richmond (Town) " " MA0096 44 West Stockbridge (Town) " " MA0311 43 Lanesborough (Town) " " MA0300 57 Bennington (Town) Bennington, VTVT0025 77 N. Bennington Village " " VT0092 79 Old Bennington Village " " VT0091 77 Pownal (Town) " " VT0156 70 Shaftsbury (Town) " " VT0026 85 Woodford " " VT0157 81 Arlington (Town) " " VT0033 90 East Arlington " " VT0186 89 East Dorset " " VT0136 103 Manchester (Town)* " " VT0036/ 97 VT0187 South Dorset " " VT0185 101 Sunderland (Town) " " VT0159 94 West Arlington " " VT0169 90 Winhall (Town) " " VT0065 -- Readsboro " " VT0075 79 *These communities were listed more than once in the list provided by WRNN-TV, but with different CUID numbers. Since they are apparently the same community in each case, but served by more than one cable system, as evidenced by the separate CUID number, there is no need to count the community more than once for the purposes of this order. In addition, we noted 22 duplications of communities with the same CUID number on WRNN-TV's list. Those duplications have been eliminated herein. **WRNN-TV indicated in its reply that these 2 communities, served by A-R Cablevision, were located in Renssalaer County. Our records indicate, however, that they are located in Albany County. Since A-R Cablevision apparently serves communities located in Renssalaer, Albany and Columbia Counties, these communities are likely to be those referenced by WRNN-TV. #There was no CUID number listed for this community. Apparently, it has never been registered. ^where known