$//Fouce Amesument Enterprises Inc., Carriage Complaint, MO&O, DA-95-28//$ $/76.59 Modification of television markets/$ $/76.61 Disputes concerning carriage/$ $/300.534 Carriage of Local Commercial Television Signals/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA-95-28 In Re Complaint of ) ) FOUCE AMUSEMENT ) CSR-4300-M ENTERPRISES, INC. ) Licensee of Television Station KRCA, ) Riverside, California ) ) For Carriage on Paragon Cable System ) Serving Garden Grove, Westminster, and ) Huntington Beach, California ) ) and ) ) In Re Petition of ) ) PARAGON CABLE ) CSR-4368-A ) Modification of KRCA ADI Market ) For Must Carry Purposes ) ) Cypress, CA (CA No Code) ) Fountain Valley, CA (CA0752) ) Garden Grove, CA (CA0943) ) Huntington Beach, CA (CA0751) ) Los Alamitos, CA (CA0944) ) Midway City, CA (CA0931) ) Rossmoor, CA (CA0845) ) Stanton, CA (CA0932) ) Westminster, CA (CA0750) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 9, 1995 Released: By the Cable Services Bureau 1. Before the Commission are two interrelated pleadings involving Fouce Amusement Enterprises, Inc. ("Fouce"), licensee of television station KRCA(TV), Channel 62 (Independent), Riverside, California and Paragon Cable ("Paragon"). The first pleading is a Complaint filed by Fouce (CSR- 4300-M) on August 2, 1994, seeking to enforce the Commission's must carry rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.55 et. seq., and to require the proper carriage of KRCA by Paragon's cable system serving the principal communities of Garden Grove, Westminster and Huntington Beach, California (the "System"). The second pleading is a Petition for Special Relief filed by Paragon (CSR- 4368-A) on September 16, 1994, seeking modification of the television market of KRCA, for must carry purposes, to exclude the communities served by Paragon's Orange County cable system (the "Orange County System"). We will resolve Paragon's market modification Petition first, and then we will address Fouce's must carry complaint. MARKET MODIFICATION BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to 4 of the Cable 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 No. 92-259, a commercial television broadcast station is 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. This section of the 1992 Cable Act also 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 MM Docket No. 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 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. Id. at 2977 (emphasis in original). 6. In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that changes requested 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 1992 Cable Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request. 7. Adding communities to a station's ADI generally entitles that station to insist on cable carriage in those communities. However, this right is subject to several conditions: 1) a cable system operator is generally required to devote no more than one-third of the system's activated channel capacity to compliance with the mandatory signal carriage obligations; 2) the station is responsible for delivering a good quality signal to the principal headend of the system; 3) indemnification may be required for any increase in copyright liability resulting from carriage; and 4) the system operator is not required to carry the signal of any station whose signal substantially duplicates the signal of any other local signal carried, or the signal of more than one local station affiliated with a particular broadcast network. If, pursuant to these requirements, a system operator elects to carry the signal of only one such duplicating signal, the operator is obliged to carry the station from the ADI whose city of license is closest to the principal headend of the cable system. Accordingly, based on the specific circumstances involved, the addition of communities to a station's ADI may guarantee it cable carriage and specific channel position rights, or may simply provide the system operator with an expanded list of must-carry signals from which to choose (i.e., when the system has used up its channel capacity mandated for broadcast signal carriage, or determined which of duplicating network affiliated stations are entitled to carriage priority). MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 8. The communities in question -- Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos, Midway City, Rossmoor, Stanton and Westminster, California -- are all located in Orange County, and are part of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino-Corona- Fontana-Riverside, California area of dominant influence ("ADI"). The communities are situated in the southwestern portion of the ADI, approximately 30 miles east of KRCA's city of license. 9. In support of its petition, Paragon states that the channel capacity of its Orange County System varies, but much of it currently operates at 46 channels. Paragon argues that forced carriage of KRCA would have a negative impact on its ability to provide its customers with desired, locally responsive programming, which was Congress' stated rationale for the must carry rules. Paragon also claims that application of the four statutory factors in Section 614(h)(1)(C) support its proposed modification of KRCA's market. First, with respect to historic carriage, Paragon states that it had never carried KRCA on its system prior to the 1993 reintroduction of must carry, although it is currently carrying KRCA in portions of the system, and plans to add KRCA to its remaining territory, as it completes its system rebuild, by 1996. Second, regarding local coverage, Paragon notes that KRCA is geographically removed from its Orange County System by 30 miles and a mountain range. It also states that KRCA's programming is not directed to local coverage of its Orange County System's communities because it is almost entirely non-English (approximately 95% is Asian language programming) and is "foreign" in origin, which has appeal to only a minority of local viewers. Paragon also notes that approximately 50% of KRCA's programming is infomercials. Third, Paragon argues that its system has ample local coverage by 16 other local broadcast stations, 4 local access channels, and a regional cable news channel, Orange County News, which covers local news. Paragon also points out that it carries 4 foreign language channels, including KSCI, San Bernardino, which broadcasts primarily in Asian languages, and which also carries two Vietnamese programs offered by KRCA. Finally, Paragon states that it was unable to identify any commercial ratings for KRCA within Orange County, and in a survey conducted by Paragon regarding additional channels, no subscribers requested carriage of KRCA. 10. In Opposition, Fouce argues that Paragon has failed to meet its burden of proving the facts necessary to justify modification of KRCA's market, and thus its petition must be denied. First, regarding historic carriage, Fouce argues that Paragon has actually carried KRCA on parts of its systems, plans to expand carriage as it rebuilds its system and even promised to carry KRCA voluntarily, even if the Supreme Court overturns the must carry rules. Fouce states that other cable systems in Orange County carry KRCA as well, thus demonstrating that Paragon and other systems have accepted that KRCA serves their communities. In addition, Fouce points to other stations in the same area as KRCA - KVEA, KSCI and KVCR - all of which KRCA has carried since 1987, despite the fact that KSCI and KVCR are licensed to San Bernardino, which is even farther away from Orange County than Riverside. Other systems serving Orange County have also carried KSCI since at least 1981, according to Fouce. Fouce adds that it is misleading to focus on KRCA's pre- 1993 carriage history, as Paragon does, because although it has been broadcasting since 1988, it was originally a home shopping station, and only began its Asian-language and other programming in mid-1993. 11. With respect to local coverage, Fouce states that KRCA places a City Grade signal over the communities in question, which the Commission has held can demonstrate local coverage and that Riverside is geographically equidistant or closer to Orange County than other stations Paragon carries. Fouce also notes that geographic distance is inappropriate in this case because for Asian-speaking viewers, city boundaries are much less important because they form communities that cross city and county lines, transforming the entire Los Angeles market into groups of interrelated markets. Third, Fouce refutes Paragon's claim that 50% of KRCA's programming is paid programming, or infomercials, stating that in fact less than 9% of KRCA's weekly programming is paid programming and that the remaining 91% is a variety of English and non-English language news, public affairs, children's and entertainment programs. Fourth, Fouce states that KRCA's programming target audience is significant: Westminster and Garden Grove are the heart of the Southern California Vietnamese community, and are where "Little Saigon" is located. Fouce notes that the Asian population of Westminster is 22.5% and 20.5% for Garden Grove, and that while the total population of Orange County has increased by only about 25% from 1980 to 1990, the Asian population has increased by about 166%. Finally, Fouce argues that "foreign" programming is not incompatible with local appeal, as such programming is of interest to local Asian viewers who have strong family, business, social, language and personal ties to those countries. Moreover, Fouce states that KRCA does provide a significant amount of locally produced programming, primarily the "Little Saigon" entertainment, interview, and news programs, which are only broadcast over KRCA. 12. Regarding the third statutory factor, coverage by other qualified stations, Fouce states that Paragon's argument about already carrying several other local stations is irrelevant because carried to its extreme, it would allow a system to reject all but one local station in every market. Fouce also states that Paragon's carriage of 4 local access stations does not justify excluding KRCA from the market. With respect to Paragon's carriage of other foreign language stations, Fouce argues that this proves that foreign language programming is indeed of value to Paragon's subscribers. Moreover, Fouce states that KRCA's programming is not duplicative of KSCI, and that a significant amount of its programs are broadcast only on KRCA. Finally, regarding local viewing patterns of KRCA, Fouce argues that it is Paragon's own refusal to carry KRCA that has resulted in it not being included in the Orange County television listings, and that Paragon subscribers have complained to either KRCA's station manager, or to the producer of the Little Saigon Television programs broadcast on KRCA, about the unavailability of KRCA on certain parts of the system. Fouce also notes that Paragon has not provided its survey results or shown that the survey was reliable and that, in any case, the survey is irrelevant because it was conducted in March 1993, before KRCA changed its programming from a home shopping station to its current programming. 13. In reply, Paragon states that it does not carry any other station licensed to Riverside, and that although Paragon carries two stations located in the same area as KRCA - KVEA and KSCI - these stations are carried because of the special programming they offer and not because of localism. Thus, Paragon argues that carriage of these stations proves nothing about the purported commonality of Riverside and Orange County. Paragon also states that Fouce has misunderstood the goals of must carry and that the relevant question is not whether a broadcaster's programming has local appeal, but whether it covers local matters. Paragon argues that KRCA's local coverage consists solely of its "Little Saigon" programming which represents a very small portion of KRCA's broadcast day. Paragon also states that it is relevant that its Orange County systems carry a considerably larger number of local broadcast stations than are available in most parts of the country. Finally, Paragon notes that Fouce has failed to produce any figures to rebut Paragon's showing regarding its negligible over-the-air viewership of KRCA in the Orange County system and also submits an affidavit stating that Paragon has received extremely few requests for carriage of KRCA, when compared to requests for other programming options. ANALYSIS AND DECISION 14. We shall deny Paragon's Petition because it has not presented sufficient evidence to conclude that Orange County is not a part of KRCA's television market. Applying the four statutory factors, we first note that KRCA has been carried on parts of Paragon's Orange County System since 1993. Although Paragon argues that it only began carrying KRCA due to the reimposition of the must carry rules, it appears that Paragon would carry KRCA even without these rules, based on its letter dated January 10, 1994, in which it indicated that it plans to expand carriage of KRCA as it rebuilds its system and even promised to carry KRCA voluntarily, even if the Supreme Court overturns the must carry rules. Other cable systems in Orange County carry KRCA as well, demonstrating that other systems have accepted that KRCA serves their communities. In addition, other stations in the same area as KRCA - KVEA, KSCI and KVCR - have been carried by Paragon since 1987, despite the fact that KSCI and KVCR are licensed to San Bernardino, which is even farther away from Orange County than Riverside. 15. Second, we find that Paragon has failed to demonstrate that KRCA does not provide local coverage or service to Orange County. KRCA places a City Grade signal over the communities in question, which the Commission has held can demonstrate local coverage. We also agree with Fouce that KRCA's geographic distance from Orange County is unpersuasive due to the fact that Riverside is geographically equidistant or closer to Orange County than other stations Paragon carries. Paragon's argument that it does not carry any other station licensed to Riverside is irrelevant due to the fact that KRCA is the only station licensed to Riverside. With regard to the content of KRCA's programming we agree with Fouce that "foreign" programming is not incompatible with local appeal, as such programming is of interest to a significant number of Asian viewers in Orange County who have strong family, business, social, language and personal ties to those countries. In addition to this programming, KRCA also provides locally produced programming, in particular the Little Saigon programs, which are of particular appeal to the Asian community in Orange County, and which are broadcast only over KRCA. 16. Third, we do not believe that Paragon's carriage of other local stations is sufficient to justify exclusion of KRCA from the Orange County market. Although Paragon does carry a number of local stations, it has not demonstrated that it has reached its maximum required must carry capacity. The fact that Paragon already carries other foreign language stations is irrelevant to this analysis unless Paragon can prove that KRCA's programming is substantially duplicative of these stations, which Paragon has also failed to do. Moreover, as Fouce points out, carriage of other foreign language programming demonstrates that such programming is indeed of value to Paragon's subscribers. 17. Finally, we find Paragon's arguments regarding KRCA's lack of ratings in Orange County to be unpersuasive. As Fouce points out, it is likely that a major reason why KRCA is not included in the Orange County television listings is due to Paragon's own refusal to carry KRCA in portions of the county. We also find that Paragon's survey cannot be relied upon as conclusive of the viewing preferences of its subscribers because Paragon has not provided its survey results or shown that the survey was reliable. Even if the survey was substantiated, its results may not be relevant because it was conducted in March 1993, before KRCA changed its programming from a home shopping station to its current programming. We find that Fouce has presented evidence indicating that Paragon subscribers have complained about the lack of KRCA's programming on Paragon's systems, thus indicating that there is potential local viewership in the communities in question. Finally, we note that the Commission has previously recognized that foreign language stations, such as KRCA, once referred to as specialty stations, are capable of "offer[ing] desirable diversity of programming . . . ," yet typically attract limited audiences. We continue to believe, as we did then, that the fact that such stations attract limited audiences must be taken into account in determining the equities concerning such stations' rights to cable carriage. 18. In conclusion, we find that Paragon's Petition is inconsistent with Congressional intent, which clearly states that the market modification policy was not provided as a means for cable systems to avoid their must carry obligations or to discriminate against one station in the market compared to another. Because Paragon has not pointed to particularized evidence that Orange County is not part of KRCA's market, based on the four statutory factors or any other relevant factors, it cannot be permitted to single KRCA out from among other stations in the same area, such as KVEA, KSCI and KVCR, all of which Paragon does carry, and request that its system be deleted from KRCA's television market. MUST CARRY BACKGROUND 19. On August 2, 1994, Fouce filed a Complaint against Paragon to enforce the Commission's must carry rules and to require the proper carriage of KRCA by Paragon's system serving the principal communities of Garde Grove, Westminster and Huntington Beach, California ( the "System"). Paragon filed a response to the complaint on September 15, 1994, and Fouce submitted a reply on September 28, 1994. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 20. In its complaint, Fouce states that Paragon has carried KRCA on its over-the-air channel, Channel 62, since 1993, but that in the Garden Grove area it is carried on Channel 25B, which is available only to a portion of that community's subscribers, and that KRCA is not available at all to certain other parts of the system. Fouce states that this type of carriage violates Section 76.56(d) of the Commission's rules that require local commercial television stations to be provided to "every subscriber of a cable system." Fouce states that KRCA is a "local commercial television station" for Paragon's system under Section 76.55(c) of the Commission's rules, and that it carries foreign language, religious, children's, community affairs and other programming. Fouce states that it asserted its channel position rights for the System in a letter dated January 3, 1994, and that because it was not possible to carry KRCA on its over-the-air channel, or the channel on which it was carried prior to July 19, 1985 or on January 1, 1992, it requested that it and Paragon choose a mutually agreeable channel. Fouce states that by letter dated January 10, 1994, Paragon responded that it would not agree to discuss channel position or to assure carriage of the signal to all subscribers. According to Fouce, it later learned that Paragon would not carry KRCA to all subscribers for two years, until certain portions of its system were built out, and that after subsequent attempts to commence full carriage failed, it sent a letter on July 1, 1994, notifying Paragon of its noncompliance with the mandatory compliance rules and requested that it immediately shift KRCA to a mutually acceptable channel between 2 and 46 so that all subscribers would be able to receive it. Fouce states that Paragon did not respond to KRCA's letter within the required 30-day period, nor complied with the terms of KRCA's letter and that Fouce's complaint was filed within 60 days of the expiration of this 30-day period. Fouce argues that its case is similar to a case involving WLIG-TV, Riverhead, New York, against Cablevision Systems, in which the Commission directed Cablevision to switch WLIG's channel to a lower channel receivable by all subscribers, until its system rebuild was completed. Fouce adds that carriage in these communities is particularly important because they encompass minority communities interested in receiving KRCA's Asian-language programming. 21. In its Opposition, Paragon first argues that Fouce's complaint was not timely filed because such complaint was required to be filed within 60-days from Paragon's January 10, 1994 letter, which is when Paragon first denied carriage of KRCA. Paragon relies on Johnson Broadcasting Inc., in which the Commission held that Prime Cable's denial of carriage of KNWS constituted an affirmative action which triggered the station's right to file a complaint. Paragon's second argument is that KRCA should be deleted from the System's television market for must carry purposes, and thus it filed the above-captioned Petition for ADI modification. 22. In its Reply, Fouce argues that Paragon has effectively conceded its violation of FCC rules by failing to respond to the merits of Fouce's argument. With respect to the timeliness of Fouce's complaint, Fouce argues that Paragon's January 10, 1994 letter cannot be characterized as rejecting Fouce's carriage request. In fact, Fouce claims, this letter promised to carry KRCA by April 1994, and that it would continue to carry KRCA even if the Supreme Court struck down the must carry rules. Fouce distinguishes Johnson Broadcasting, Inc. on the grounds that in that case, the letter from the cable operator plainly declined to carry the station, and its holding was limited to a finding that the complaint was not premature, and did not address whether it would have been too late if the station had, like Fouce, continued to negotiate with the cable operator for carriage before filing a complaint. Fouce argues that acceptance of Paragon's argument would have the effect of discouraging stations and operators from trying to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, and instead would encourage the filing of complaints. Finally, Fouce claims that Paragon's Petition to modify the ADI is a retaliatory measure in response to its filing a complaint demanding carriage, by threatening to remove KRCA from all its cable communities, even where KRCA is currently being carried. ANALYSIS AND DECISION 23. As discussed above, we are denying Paragon's Petition to delete KRCA from its Orange County System for must carry purposes because it did not meet its burden of proving that KRCA was not legitimately a part of the Orange County market. Thus, we turn to Paragon's only other argument in response to Fouce's complaint: whether the complaint was timely filed. 24. We agree with Fouce that its complaint was timely filed. Paragon's January 10, 1994 letter did not constitute a denial of carriage. In fact, Paragon indicated that it would commence carriage in Huntington Beach beginning in April, and that once rebuilding was complete, Paragon would "be happy" to carry KRCA on its over-the-air channel, Channel 62. Paragon's letter goes on to say that "[e]ven if the Supreme Court decides against the must carry rules, I trust that we will be able to accommodate your carriage request, as long as the quality of the programming meets the community's needs, for both Orange County and Los Angeles." Paragon also sent correspondence to Fouce in March of 1994, explaining its construction progress on rebuilding its system and stating that its Huntington Beach customers would begin viewing KRCA on Channel 62 as of May. This letter is a further indication that Paragon's January 10 letter was not a denial of carriage, thus not triggering the 60-day clock for filing a complaint. This case is distinguishable from Johnson Broadcasting Inc., where the letter from the cable operator plainly indicated that it would not carry the station until after the Supreme Court rendered a decision affirming the must carry provisions, and thus opened the 60-day window for filing a complaint demanding carriage. However, in the case before us, because there were on-going discussions between Paragon and Fouce, without a firm statement that carriage would be denied, and yet without proper carriage of KRCA to all subscribers as required under the Commission's Rules, we find that the complaint was timely filed. 25. With respect to the issue of channel capacity, we agree with Fouce that, following the Commission's holding in WLIG-TV, Inc., Paragon is required to make KRCA's signal available to all its subscribers in Garden Grove, Westminster, and Huntington Beach, because KRCA has must carry rights in these communities. In WLIG-TV, Inc., WLIG complained that, despite the fact that it was entitled to must carry rights on Cablevision's systems in Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, New York, WLIG was not available to a number of subscribers' homes because it was being carried on Channel 37, which subscribers in non-upgraded areas could not receive with their 36 channel converter box. Cablevision argued that all subscribers would be able to receive WLIG once their system rebuild was complete, in six months. We held that because WLIG had must carry rights in the communities in question, it could not be required to wait for the rebuild in order to be properly carried, and thus required Cablevision to switch WLIG to a channel currently receivable by all subscribers during the rebuilding of the system. Similarly, in the case before us, we find that KRCA, as a must carry station in Garden Grove, Westminster and Huntington Beach, is not required to wait until Paragon completes its system rebuild in order to be made available to all subscribers in these communities. Thus, Paragon is required to carry KRCA on a mutually acceptable channel, on the basic tier, that is available to all subscribers in its system, which in this case is any channel between 2 and 46, pending the completion of rebuilding its system. By doing so, KRCA will be provided to all of Paragon's subscribers on the same basis as other signals entitled to mandatory carriage on the basic tier. Once the system is fully rebuilt, Paragon may move KRCA to its over-the-air channel (Channel 62), or any other mutually agreed upon channel. ORDERING CLAUSES 26. In view of the foregoing, we find that grant of Fouce's complaint to the extent indicated above, is in the public interest. 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the "Complaint" (CSR- 4300-M) filed August 2, 1994, by Fouce Amusement Enterprises, Inc. IS GRANTED to the extent indicated in paragraphs 23-25, supra, in accordance with 614(d)(3)(47 U.S.C. 534) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That Paragon Cable SHALL CARRY the signal of KRCA in compliance with this Order within thirty (30) days of its release date on its system serving Garden Grove, Westminster and Huntington Beach, California. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  534, and Section 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.59, that the "Petition for Special Relief" (CSR-4368-A) filed September 16, 1994 by Paragon Cable IS DENIED. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau