******************************************************** 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 re Complaint of ) ) Paxson New York License, Inc. ) against Blue Ridge Cable Television, Inc. ) CSR 4830-M ) Request for Carriage of WHAI-TV, Bridgeport, Connecticut ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 23, 1997 Released: January 30, 1997 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Paxson New York License, Inc. ("Paxson"), licensee of WHAI-TV, Bridgeport, Connecticut, filed a complaint pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  534, and Sections 76.7 and 76.61(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.7 & 76.61(a), claiming entitlement to mandatory carriage of WHAI-TV on the cable system of Blue Ridge Cable Television, Inc. ("Blue Ridge") in Milford, Pennsylvania ("Milford"). Blue Ridge filed an Opposition to the complaint, and Paxson filed a Reply. II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the 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 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. A commercial television station serving a community of license that is located within the same ADI as the principal headend of a cable system has a right of carriage on that cable system. However, this right is subject to the requirement that the station deliver a good quality signal to the principal headend of the system. III. MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENT 3. After Blue Ridge refused a request from Paxson for carriage of WHAI-TV on its cable system serving Milford, Paxson filed the instant must-carry complaint. Paxson asserts that WHAI-TV is eligible for must-carry on Blue Ridge's cable system, because WHAI-TV is located within the same ADI, the New York, New York ADI, as is Milford. Paxson contends that WHAI- TV must be considered a "local" station with respect to Blue Ridge's cable system in Milford, because it delivers a good quality signal to the principal headend of the cable system by means of a low power television station, station W23BA, licensed to East Orange, New Jersey. Paxson argues that, since WHAI-TV and Blue Ridge's cable system are located in the same ADI and WHAI-TV delivers a good quality signal to the cable system's headend, WHAI-TV is entitled to must-carry rights on Blue Ridge's cable system in Milford. 4. Blue Ridge concedes that WHAI-TV would be entitled to carriage on its Milford system, provided WHAI-TV delivered a good quality signal to the cable system headend. Blue Ridge points out, however, that Bridgeport, Connecticut, WHAI-TV's city of license, and Milford, Pennsylvania are almost 100 miles apart and that WHAI-TV's Grade B signal contour falls approximately 50 miles short of Milford. Blue Ridge also provided a signal strength study, which according to Blue Ridge shows that neither WHAI-TV itself nor the low power station W23BA delivers a good quality signal to the Milford system headend. Blue Ridge asserts that a low power station, such as station W23BA, that fails to deliver a good quality signal to a cable system is not a qualified low power station eligible for must-carry on that cable system, under Section 76.55(d)(4) of the rules. Paxson asserts in reply that a fiber optic line may be used to deliver a good quality signal to a cable system headend, and that WHAI-TV will be entitled to carriage on Blue Ridge's Milford cable system as soon as WHAI-TV begins to deliver a good quality signal to the cable system's Milford headend via fiber optic lines. IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 5. Paxson's complaint will be denied. WHAI-TV is a UHF commercial television station licensed to operate on Channel 43 at Bridgeport, Connecticut. It is located in the eastern portion of the New York, New York ADI, approximately 100 miles from Milford, Pennsylvania. Blue Ridge provides cable services in Milford, which is located in the western portion of the New York ADI. We find that Blue Ridge has demonstrated that WHAI-TV does not deliver a good quality signal to Blue Ridge's cable system principal head end at Milford either directly or by means of low power station W23BA. The signal strength study provided by Blue Ridge shows that the strength of the signal of station W23BA falls well below the -45 bBm statutory signal level threshold requirement for a UHF signal. The study also showed that no signal of WHAI-TV itself was detectable at the headend site. Further, we conclude that WHAI-TV's presence as a "local" station within the meaning of Section 614(h)(1) of the Communications Act is not established by Paxson's suggestion that WHAI-TV's signal could at some future date be delivered to the headend site by means of a fiber optic line. V. ORDER 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act, that the complaint filed October 29, 1996 in File No. CSR 4830-M by Paxson New York License, Inc. IS DENIED. 7. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gary M. Laden, Chief Consumer Protection and Competition Division Cable Services Bureau