NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re: ) ) WTTE, Channel 28 Licensee, Inc., ) CSR-4043-A Columbus, OH ) ) For Modification of Television ) Broadcast Station WTTE's ADI ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 8, 1996 Released: May 20, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. Channel 28 Licensee, Inc., ("WTTE"), licensee of television station WTTE(TV), Columbus, Ohio (Fox, channel 28), has filed the captioned petition requesting modification of its "area of dominant influence" ("ADI") for purposes of the cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules. WTTE seeks to include communities located in the following four Ohio counties within the Columbus, Ohio ADI: Muskingum County, Guernsey County, Logan County, and Richland County. Channel 19, Inc., ("WOIO"), licensee of television station WOIO(TV), Shaker Heights, Ohio (CBS, channel 19), has filed an opposition with respect to the communities located in Richland County, Ohio. In addition, Act III Broadcasting of Dayton, Inc., ("WRGT"), licensee of television station WRGT-TV, Dayton, Ohio (Fox, channel 45), opposes the grant of WTTE's petition with respect to the communities located in Logan County, Ohio. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, commercial television broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market. A station's market for this purpose is its "area of dominant influence" or ADI as defined by the Arbitron audience research organization. An ADI is a geographic market designation that defines each television market exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns. Essentially, each county in the United States is allocated to a market based on which home-market stations receive a preponderance of total viewing hours in the county. For purposes of this calculation, both over-the-air and cable television viewing are included. 3. Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in ADI 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 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 Report and Order in MM Docket 92- 259, supra, to aid decision making in these matters, as follows: For example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission of documents listing the cable system's channel line-up (e.g., rate cards) for a period of years. To show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable community (factor 2), parties may demonstrate that the station places at least a Grade B coverage contour over the cable community or is located close to the community in terms of mileage. Coverage of news or other programming of interest to the community could be demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The final factor concerns viewing patterns in the cable community in cable and 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 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 Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an market area change request. 7. Adding communities to a station's market area 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 its 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 signals 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 a single affiliate of a broadcast network, it is obliged to carry the affiliate from within the market 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 market area may guarantee it cable carriage and specific channel position rights; simply provide the system operator with an expanded list of must-carry signals from which to choose, i.e., when it has used up its channel capacity mandated for broadcast signals carriage, or determined which of duplicating network affiliated stations are entitled to carriage priority. MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 8. WTTE is a Fox affiliate licensed in Columbus, Ohio, which is located in the Columbus, Ohio ADI. In its petition, WTTE asks the Commission to modify its ADI so that communities in Muskingum, Guernsey, Logan, and Richland Counties, Ohio may be included within the Columbus ADI for purposes of the cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules. The counties containing the communities at issue in this proceeding are located in four Ohio ADIs. Muskingum County is located in the Zanesville ADI. Guernsey County is included within the Wheeling-Steubenville ADI. Logan County is part of the Dayton ADI. And Richland County is part of the Cleveland ADI. Muskingum, Guernsey, Logan, and Richland Counties are all contiguous to the Columbus, Ohio ADI. Muskingum and Guernsey Counties border the Columbus ADI to the east, Richland County lies to the north, and Logan County is located west of the Columbus ADI. 9. In support of its request, WTTE provides a chart summarizing the extent of the station's carriage on cable systems serving the Communities. WTTE indicates that it has been historically carried on cable systems serving virtually all of the Communities. According to the petitioner, WTTE has been carried to most of the Muskingum County communities since 1984, to most of the Guernsey County communities since 1989, and to most of the Logan County communities since 1992. As to Richland County, it appears that WTTE has been carried to the communities of Bellville and Butler since at least 1993 and is currently carried to Mansfield and Lexington. There is no evidence of historic carriage with respect to Shelby in Richland County or East Zanesville in Muskingum County. 10. WTTE currently provides Grade B contour coverage to the following communities: Bellefontaine and West Mansfield in Logan County; Frazeysburg, Hopewell, and Nashport in Muskingum County; and Bellville, Butler, Lexington, and part of Mansfield in Richland County. WTTE does not provide Grade B contour coverage to Guernsey County. We note that WTTE has filed an Application for Construction Permit with the Commission which is currently pending. Grant of the Application would permit WTTE to relocate its antenna transmitter site and increase its predicted Grade B signal contour coverage to include, in addition to the communities referenced above, Belle Center in Logan County, Dresden and part of Zanesville in Muskingum County, and all of Mansfield and Shelby in Richland County. Even with an increase in the predicted radius of coverage, however, WTTE's Grade B contour would not cover the communities of Chandlersville, New Concord or Philo in Muskingum County or any portion of Guernsey County. 11. Regarding the provision of local service, WTTE explains that the bulk of its programming is geared toward young viewers in central Ohio, including those in the Communities. The petitioner claims that, in addition to providing popular Fox programming, WTTE is an important source of local youth-oriented programming and educational information for children in the Communities. Specifically, WTTE asserts that it meets the needs of young viewers in the Communities through its Fox-28 Kids Club. The petitioner describes the Fox-28 Kids Club as a "pro-social, pro-educational program serving the children of WTTE(TV)'s service area." According to the petitioner, the Fox-28 Kids Club offers free membership and membership card, a monthly newsletter, a birthday package mailed prior to each member's birthday, an annual Kids Club Expo consisting of entertainment and educational exhibits for children and their families, sponsorship of various educational activities, and involvement in community outreach events. In particular, the station notes that it has been conducting a campaign to promote environmental awareness among children in central Ohio, including those in the Communities. WTTE claims that the Fox-28 Kids Club is the most successful kids club in the nation, with approximately 125,000 members throughout central Ohio. Moreover, the petitioner states that the Fox-28 Kids Club includes a large number of children from the Communities. WTTE submits an exhibit listing the number of Fox-28 Kids Club members in many of the Communities. The petitioner argues that "[t]he widespread membership of the Fox- 28 Kids Club in these communities provides conclusive evidence of WTTE(TV)'s influence beyond the confines of the Columbus ADI." 12. As to the issue of whether other stations entitled to mandatory carriage provide local coverage to the communities in question, WTTE contends that it is the only Fox affiliate available to viewers in the Muskingum and Guernsey County communities. The petitioner maintains that it provides viewers in these communities with popular Fox programming and other youth-oriented programming which they would not otherwise receive. In addition, WTTE avers that it is the closest Fox affiliate to the communities at issue in both Logan and Richland Counties. The petitioner asserts that modification of WTTE's television market would permit the station to take advantage of the "closest network affiliate" provision of our rules. 13. WTTE argues that local viewing patterns justify inclusion of the Communities within the Columbus ADI. The petitioner contends that it is significantly viewed in Muskingum, Guernsey, Logan, and Richland Counties. WTTE further maintains that it is the most watched independent station in Muskingum and Guernsey Counties. According to the petitioner, WTTE is also the most viewed independent or Fox station in non-cable households in both Logan and Richland Counties. WTTE supports its assertions with a Declaration by the General Manager of WTTE which cites 1992 A.C. Nielsen County/Coverage Study data. To further support its contention that WTTE is viewed in the Communities, the petitioner asserts that the Muskingum County communities at issue are located in close geographic proximity to Columbus and rely on Columbus stations for much of their local programming. WTTE also maintains that due to "regional infrastructure and shopping patterns", residents of the three Logan County communities more closely associate themselves with Columbus rather than Dayton, Ohio. According to the 1995 Nielsen reports, Columbus, Ohio stations are widely viewed in Muskingum County which is located in the Zanesville ADI. In fact, there is only one full power television station in the Zanesville ADI and WTTE is the only Fox affiliate serving Muskingum County viewers. WTTE receives a substantial total share of 6 and a cume of 49 in Muskingum County. In Logan County, which is part of the Dayton ADI, WTTE garners a total share of 3 and a cume of 33. These viewership levels are comparable to those achieved by the Dayton Fox affiliate, WRGT, which receives a total share of 2 and a cume of 16. In Guernsey County, WTTE is the only Fox affiliate and achieves a total share of 3 and a cume of 33. In Richland County, which is located in the Cleveland ADI, WTTE receives a mere 1 total share and 8 cume compared to the Cleveland Fox affiliate, WJW, which garners a substantial 10 total share and a 67 cume. 14. In its opposition to WTTE's request, WOIO contends that the petitioner does not make the specific showings required to justify extension of WTTE's ADI into Richland County. WOIO is a CBS affiliate licensed to Shaker Heights, Ohio and operating in the Cleveland ADI. WOIO argues that WTTE's petition should be dismissed as "procedurally defective and substantively devoid of merit." The opponent contends that WTTE has largely ignored the procedural requirements of Section 76.7(c)(1) of the Commission's rules. This section generally directs petitioners of special relief to state the facts relied on to demonstrate the need for relief and to support factual allegations by affidavit. WOIO argues that WTTE's petition fails to establish a need for the relief requested. The opponent points out that if WTTE is, in fact, significantly viewed in Richland County, carriage of the station would not subject Richland County cable systems to additional copyright royalty fees under Section 111 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (1976), as amended. WOIO reasons that, under these circumstances, Richland County cable operators that have historically carried WTTE would be expected to continue to carry the station, if it is in popular demand, regardless of whether WTTE prevails in its request for special relief and achieves must-carry status in the County. WOIO further notes that such continued carriage of WTTE by Richland County cable systems would require the grant by WTTE of retransmission consent. The opponent argues that if WTTE refuses to grant such retransmission consent, the station cannot then reasonably complain if its actions result in the deletion of WTTE from Richland County cable systems. In sum, the opponent contends that WTTE has failed to demonstrate a clear need for the relief requested because the petitioner has not established that, absent the grant of its petition, WTTE's signal will be deleted from Richland County cable systems presently carrying the station, even if WTTE is willing to grant retransmission consent. WOIO argues, in addition, that the Declaration of John T. Quigley, General Manager of WTTE, does not satisfy the requirements of 76.7(c)(1). In his Declaration, Mr. Quigley states that WTTE broadcasts educational, informational, and entertainment programming specific to children. WOIO contends, however, that Mr. Quigley's Declaration fails to provide any detailed information concerning the broadcast of WTTE's youth-oriented programming, such as the date and time of the broadcasts, the specific content of the broadcasts, and the nature of the connection of the broadcasts to Richland County specifically. WOIO asserts that the petitioner does not even claim that WTTE's programming is specifically oriented toward viewers in the Richland County communities. 15. The opponent contends that WTTE's showing with respect to Richland County fails to satisfy the four market modification criteria set forth in the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's rules. WOIO argues that at the time that WTTE filed its petition, the station was not carried on cable systems serving three of the five Richland County communities at issue -- Mansfield, Shelby, or Lexington. Regarding coverage, WOIO contends that the petitioner provides Grade B contour coverage to only the southern half of Richland County. Specifically, WOIO states that the petitioner does not place a Grade B contour over Shelby. WOIO further asserts that the contour coverage map submitted by WTTE indicates that the largest community in Richland County, Mansfield, is partially within and partially outside of WTTE's predicted Grade B contour. Additionally, the opponent notes that the distance between Columbus and the headend of the Mansfield cable system is 92 km and the distance between Columbus and the headend of the cable system serving Shelby is 107 km. WOIO claims that the magnitude of these distances supports its contention that WTTE cannot be considered a local signal with respect to the communities in Richland County. 16. The opponent argues that WTTE has not presented sufficient evidence regarding the provision of local service to the residents of Richland County. WOIO states that the petitioner does not supply any specific information demonstrating that WTTE routinely broadcasts news or public affairs programming particularly geared to viewers in Richland County nor, contends WOIO, does WTTE even claim to offer such programming. In its opposition, WOIO also makes a number of arguments based on its former status as a Fox affiliate. Although these arguments are no longer directly applicable to WOIO since it changed its affiliation to CBS, they may be relevant with respect to another Cleveland station, WJW, which became a Fox affiliate in 1994. For instance, concerns that two affiliates from the same television network may air duplicative programming remain valid. Each week WTTE broadcasts many hours of syndicated and Fox Television Network programming which also may be broadcast by WJW or other Cleveland ADI stations. WOIO also asserts that the petitioner's contentions concerning WTTE's provision of local youth-oriented and educational programming to children in the Communities through the broadcast of the Fox-28 Kids Club are "misleading and disingenuous." WOIO explains that the "Kids Club" is actually the Fox Television Network Kids Club and that it, too, operated a "Kids Club" as a Fox affiliate. WOIO surmises that some cable operators may have refused to carry WTTE to Richland County in the past because of the substantial overlap in programming between a Columbus Fox affiliate and a Cleveland Fox affiliate. WOIO further contends that all of the television stations in the Cleveland ADI offer programming responsive to the needs and interests of viewers in the ADI, including viewers in Richland County. For example, WOIO states that, as a Fox affiliate, it broadcast local public affairs programming specifically attuned to the interests of northeast Ohio residents, including Richland County viewers. 17. WOIO argues that viewing patterns do not support grant of WTTE's petition with respect to Richland County. The opponent contends that no reliance may be placed on WTTE's claim that it is "significantly viewed" in Richland County. The opponent asserts that because WTTE first went on the air in July of 1984, the station's status of "significantly viewed" was based on audience data collected between July 1984 and July 1987. Audience survey data that is this many years old, argues WOIO, cannot, alone, support a claim that WTTE is currently in popular demand in the communities in Richland County. Moreover, WOIO contends that achieving the viewership levels required to demonstrate "significantly viewed" status -- i.e., a share of viewing hours of at least 2 percent (total week hours) and a net weekly circulation of at least 5 percent for an independent television station -- does not necessarily make a compelling case for modification of an ADI. In addition, the opponent argues that audience survey data indicate a "very low level" of viewer interest in WTTE throughout Richland County. In particular, WOIO contends that the 1992-1993 Arbitron Non-Cable County Coverage data for Richland County refute the petitioner's claim that WTTE is the most heavily watched Fox or independent station in non-cable homes in Richland County. The opponent also asserts that the 1992-1993 Arbitron data for both cable and non-cable households indicate that viewers in Richland County strongly prefer Cleveland ADI stations to Columbus ADI stations. 18. WRGT, a Fox affiliate operating in the Dayton, Ohio ADI, opposes the grant of WTTE's petition with respect to the communities located in Logan County. Logan County is part of the Dayton ADI. The Dayton Fox affiliate asserts that the petitioner focuses largely on the virtues of the Fox-28 Kids Club and points to the Club as the primary reason why WTTE's market should be modified. WRGT maintains that the petitioner's arguments with respect to the Kids Club do not support WTTE's request for ADI modification. For one, WRGT explains that the Club is not unique to the Columbus market but is promoted nationally by Fox-affiliated stations. As a Fox affiliate in Dayton, WRGT states that it, too, operates a Fox Kids Club. Two, WRGT contends that although the petitioner relies on membership in the Kids Club as a basis for its modification request, WTTE does not indicate how members are enrolled nor does it establish a connection between membership in the Kids Club and the viewing of WTTE in Logan County. Three, WRGT claims that although the petitioner alludes to providing programming specific to children, WTTE does not offer any description of the type of programming provided. In addition, WRGT argues that, based on 1992-1993 Arbitron data, the viewing patterns of Logan County residents do not support modification of WTTE's television market. ANALYSIS AND DECISION 19. We shall grant in part and deny in part WTTE's request for market modification. The petitioner has made a persuasive case that the communities at issue in Muskingum County are logically part of WTTE's market for purposes of the cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules. There is insufficient evidence, however, to justify inclusion of the communities in Guernsey, Logan, and Richland Counties within the Columbus, Ohio ADI. 20. Turning first to Muskingum County, the petitioner has demonstrated a history of carriage on cable systems serving all of the communities at issue with the exception of East Zanesville. Specifically, WTTE has been carried to most of the Muskingum County communities identified in its petition since 1984. In addition, WTTE currently provides Grade B contour coverage to the communities of Frazeysburg, Hopewell, and Nashport. Further, grant of WTTE's application to relocate its antenna transmitter site will extend the coverage to include Dresden and part of Zanesville, though some of the Muskingum County communities will continue to remain outside of WTTE's Grade B contour. We believe that the absence of Grade B contour coverage over certain Muskingum County communities should not prevent the communities from being included within WTTE's ADI because the combination of other factors clearly makes the case for inclusion. First, we note that Muskingum County is bordered by the Columbus ADI on three sides. Second, the Nielsen data reveal that Columbus television stations, including WTTE, are widely viewed by Muskingum County residents. Viewers in Muskingum County naturally turn to the Columbus network affiliates for programming because Muskingum County's ADI of Zanesville contains only one full power television station and Muskingum is closer to Columbus than it is to the core of the neighboring Wheeling-Steubenville ADI. In examining viewership levels in the context of market modification requests, the Act requires us to take into account both over-the-air and cable television viewing patterns. According to the 1995 Nielsen data, WTTE achieves a considerable total share of 6 and a cume of 49. Furthermore, WTTE receives an over-the-air share of 5, revealing a nexus between the station and viewers in Muskingum County. WTTE is also the only Fox affiliate available to viewers in the county. The petitioner, therefore, provides Muskingum County residents with Fox network programming they would not otherwise receive. 21. WTTE fails to meet the market modification criteria with respect to the communities located in Guernsey County. Most notably, none of the communities in Guernsey are covered by WTTE's Grade B contour. Furthermore, the viewership levels achieved by WTTE in Guernsey County of a 3 total share and a 33 cume, are not particularly significant. In addition, WTTE offers no evidence that it provides programming specifically geared to viewers in the Guernsey County communities. WTTE's broadcast of the Kids Club, a program promoted nationally by Fox-affiliated stations, is insufficient to demonstrate a local presence in Guernsey County. We note, too, that the over-the-air viewership levels are unreportable, underscoring the lack of connection with WTTE. Finally, Guernsey County is 78 miles from Columbus, Ohio and is separated from Columbus by the Zanesville ADI. Although there is evidence of historic carriage and WTTE is the only Fox affiliate viewed on the relevant cable systems serving Guernsey County, these factors are not persuasive in light of the other considerations noted. 22. We shall also deny WTTE's petition with respect to the communities located in Logan and Richland Counties. Both of these counties are located in ADIs which already contain a Fox affiliate. Logan County is part of the Dayton, Ohio ADI. WRGT is the Dayton Fox affiliate. WRGT achieves viewership levels in Logan County comparable to the levels achieved by WTTE, the Columbus Fox affiliate. The circumstances are similar with respect to Richland County. Richland County is located in the Cleveland ADI. WJW is the Fox affiliate operating in Cleveland. WJW achieves far higher viewership levels in Richland County than does WTTE. WJW garners a total share of 10 and a cume of 67 compared to WTTE's total share of only 1 and cume of 8. Richland County viewers clearly prefer the Cleveland Fox affiliate to the Columbus Fox affiliate. We see no compelling grounds for rearranging current market designations by injecting another Fox affiliate into either the Dayton or Cleveland markets. In addition, WTTE offers no evidence that it provides programming specifically geared to viewers in Logan and Richland Counties. For instance, there is no evidence of local public affairs programming such as coverage of local news and events, weather or sports. Furthermore, we do not consider the Kids Club sufficient evidence of locally oriented programming. While we recognize that, with the exception of Shelby in Richland County, WTTE is carried in Logan and Richland Counties and offers Grade B contour coverage, we believe that viewing patterns clearly define the markets at issue in this proceeding and inclusion of the Logan and Richland County communities within WTTE's ADI would be inconsistent with current viewer behavior. Acting in this manner retains the fundamental predicate of the statutory mandatory carriage rule that carriage should generally be accorded within discrete, nonoverlapping, industry defined market areas while continuing to pay attention to the "value of localism" as set forth in Section 614(h)(1)(C). ORDER 23. In view of the foregoing, we find that grant of WTTE's petition with respect to the communities at issue in Muskingum County, Ohio is in the public interest. We deny WTTE's petition in all other respects. 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C) and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. 76.59), that the petition for special relief (CSR-4043-A), filed by Channel 28, Licensee, Inc., and dated August 18, 1993, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This change shall be effective in accordance with the following schedule: Channel 28, Licensee, Inc. shall notify the relevant cable systems in writing of its carriage and channel position elections (76.56, 76.57, 76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules), within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. The affected cable systems shall come into compliance with the applicable rules within sixty (60) days of such notification. 25. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau Appendix Historic CountyCommunities Cable System Carriage Guernsey Cambridge Cox 1991- Communications Present Milestone 1989- Communications Present of Ohio Senecaville, Northgate Triax Cablevision1989- USA Present Kimbolton Adelphia Cable Currently Communications carried Muskingum Dresden, Frazeysburg, TCI 1984- Nashport, Philo, New Cablevision of Present Concord, Zanesville Ohio Nashport, Zanesville Cox 1988- Communications Present Chandlersville Milestone Currently Communications carried of Ohio New Concord Heartland 1992- Cablevision Present Hopewell Adelphia Cable Currently Communications carried East Zanesville Not carried Historic CountyCommunities Cable System Carriage Logan Bellefontaine American CBL 1984- Entertainment Present Belle Center, Heartland 1992- West Mansfield Cablevision Present Richland Bellville, Butler, Adelphia Cable Since at least Communications 1993 Lexington, Mansfield Adelphia Cable Currently Communications carried ShelbyNot carried