******************************************************** 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 ) ) RALEIGH (WRDC-TV) LICENSEE, INC. ) ) vs. ) CSR 4831-M ) TCI OF ROANOKE RAPIDS, INC. ) ) Request for Carriage of WRDC-TV, Durham, North Carolina ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 24, 1997 Released: January 31, 1997 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. Raleigh (WRDC-TV) Licensee, Inc. ("Raleigh"), licensee of television Station WRDC-TV (Channel 28), Durham, North Carolina, 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 WRDC-TV on the cable system of TCI of Roanoke Rapids, Inc. ("TCI-R") that serves North Hampton County, North Carolina. TCI-R filed an Opposition to the Complaint. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to Section 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. MARKET FACTS AND ARGUMENT 3. Raleigh states that the Complaint was filed because TCI-R refused to carry WRDC- TV on its cable system serving Northampton County, North Carolina ("Northampton"). Raleigh alleges that TCI-R is obligated to carry WRDC-TV, because WRDC-TV and TCI-R's cable system serving Northampton are both located in the Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina ADI and because WRDC-TV delivers a good quality signal at the principal headend of TCI-R's cable system serving that community. Raleigh asserts that it made a request to TCI-R for carriage, but received no response from TCI-R and is therefore entitled to file a complaint for carriage. Asserting that TCI-R has no grounds for refusing to carry WRDC-TV, Raleigh requests an order requiring TCI-R to carry WRDC-TV on its cable system serving Northampton. 4. TCI-R in its Opposition requests that Raleigh's Complaint be dismissed, on the grounds that the relevant facts show that WRDC-TV is not entitled to carriage on its cable system serving Northampton. TCI-R asserts that, under Section 75.55(e) of the Commission's rules, Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television Market Guide provides the ADIs to be used for implementing the mandatory carriage rules. TCI-R asserts further that Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television Market Guideshows Northampton to be located in the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News-Hampton, Virginia ADI, and not the Raleigh-Durham ADI in which WRDC-TV is located. TCI-R contends that Raleigh improperly relied on Arbitron's 1992-1993 Television Market Guide for the contention that WRDC-TV and Northampton are both located in the Raleigh-Durham ADI. DISCUSSION 5. We conclude that TCI-R has demonstrated that WRDC-TV does not qualify for must carry rights with respect to its cable system serving Northampton. TCI-R is correct that, under the provisions of Section 76.55(e) of the rules, the ADIs to be used for purposes of implementing the mandatory carriage rules are those published in Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television Market Guide. Although Raleigh made reference to that publication in the body of its Complaint, it supported the contention that both WRDC-TV and Northampton were located in the Raleigh-Durham ADI for these purposes by improperly relying on Arbitron's 1992-1993 Television Market Guide, which is inapplicable to these proceedings under our current rules. Since WRDC-TV and Northampton are located in different ADIs, we must conclude that WRDC-TV does not qualify as a "local commercial television station" within the meaning of Section 614 (h)(1) of the Communications Act with respect to TCI-R's cable system serving Northampton and, therefore, is not entitled to mandatory carriage rights on that cable system. 6. Having found that WRDC-TV does not qualify as a "local" station with respect to TCI-R's cable system, it is unnecessary to consider whether WRDC-TV delivers a good quality signal to the principal headend of TCI-R's cable system or whether TCI-R would be exposed to additional copyright liability from carriage of WRDC-TV. ORDER 7. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act, that the Complaint filed September 19, 1996 in File No. CSR 4831-M by Raleigh (WRDC-TV) Licensee, Inc. IS DENIED. 8. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gary M. Laden, Chief Consumer Protection and Competition Division Cable Services Bureau