Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-410

10 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-410

ton. In addition, Multivision Cable TV Corp. Before the ("Multivision"), operator of a cable system serving Fair- Federal Communications Commission field, filed comments and a request for clarification and/or Washington, D.C. 20554 expedition on KPIX©s petition, and Family Stations, Inc., licensee of Station KFTL-TV (home shopping, Ch. 64), San Leandro, California, located in the Sacramento ADI, filed In re: comments on Multivision©s request for clarification. KPIX filed no response to any of the above replies to its petition. Group W Television, Inc. CSR-3925-A 2. In a separate but related case (CSR-4146-M), on Octo San Francisco, California ber 27, 1993, Ponce Nicasio Broadcasting, licensee of broadcast station KCMY-TV, (home shopping, Ch. 29), Sac ramento-Stockton, California, filed a complaint against For Modification of the San Multivision Cable TV Corp. (Multivision) for the latter©s Francisco, California ADI failure to comply with the Commission©s must-carry rules and the 1992 Cable Act. 1 KCMY argues that the Commis and sion©s rules do not prevent Multivision from adding any signal or discontinuing carriage of any single other than In re: KPIX. In its opposition to KCMY©s complaint, Multivision contends that the Commission©s rules require that it make Complaint Against CSR-4146-M no changes to its channel line-up until resolution of KPIX©s ADI petition.2 Multivision Cable TV Corp. 3. In this Memorandum Order and Opinion we address both the KPIX Area of Dominant Influence (ADI) petition Cable Television System and KCMY©s mandatory broadcast signal carriage com serving Fairfield, CA plaint together in this proceeding because they present factually related issues which would best be resolved si multaneously. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: March 1,1995 Released: March 9,1995 II. BACKGROUND 4. On October 5, 1992, the Cable Television Consumer By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") became law.3 Pursuant to § 4 of that Act and im plementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Report I. INTRODUCTION and Order, MM Docket 92-2S9,4 commercial television 1. Group W Television, Inc., licensee of Television broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory carriage Broadcast Station KPIX (CBS, Ch. 5), San Francisco, Cali rights on cable systems located within the station©s market. fornia, filed the above-captioned petition for special relief A station©s market for this purpose is its "area of dominant (CSR-3925-A) seeking to modify the San Francisco, Cali influence" or ADI as defined by the Arbitron audience fornia ADI on June 8, 1993. Group W seeks to include the research organization.5 An ADI is a geographic market communities of Fairfield, Suisun City and the surrounding designation that defines each television market exclusive of portions of Solano County, California (hereinafter "Fair- others, based on measured viewing patterns. Essentially, field") in its ADI for purposes of the cable television each county in the United States is allocated to a market mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules. KPIX©s petition based on which home-market stations receive a preponder is opposed by three Sacramento-Stockton market stations: ance of total viewing hours in the county. For purposes of Great Western Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of Tele this calculation, both over-the-air and cable television view vision Broadcast Station KXTV (CBS, Ch. 10), Sacramento; ing are included.6 Kelly Broadcasting Company, licensee of Station KCRA-TV 5. The Commission adopted a Report and Order to imple (NEC, Ch. 3), Sacramento; and KOVR TV, Inc., licensee of ment mandatory broadcast signal carriage ("must-carry") Television Broadcast Station KOVR (ABC, Ch. 13). Stock- provisions of the 1992 Cable Act. 7 Pursuant to the rules

1 KCMY states that on July 26, 1993 it first notified §73.3555(e)(3)(i), refers to Arbitron©s ADI for purposes of the Multivision of its desire to be carried on Multivision©s Fairfield, broadcast multiple ownership rules. Section 76.55(e) of the California system pursuant to must-carry. Multivision denied Commission©s Rules provides that the ADIs to be used for this request twice, first on July 31; 1993 and again on September purposes of the initial implementation of the mandatory car 1, 1993. riage rules are those published in Arbitron©s 1991-1992 Televi 2 In addition, Multivision contends that KCMY©s compliant is sion Market Guide. procedurally defective because it was filed more than 60 days 6 Because of the topography involved, certain counties are after Multivision©s first refusal to carry and because KCMY divided into more than one sampling unit. Also, in certain failed to serve all interested parties. circumstances, a station may have its home county assigned to a 3 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992). separate ADI of its own, even though stations from another 4 MM Docket 92-259 , 8 FCC Red 2965, 2976-2977 (1993): market receive a preponderance of the audience in that county. 5 Section 4 of the 1992 Cable Act specifies that a broadcasting For a more complete description of how counties are allocated, station©s market shall be determined in the manner provided in see Arbitron©s Description of Methodology. §73.3555(d)(3)(i) of the Commission©s Rules, as in effect on May 1 MM Docket 92-259, 8 FCC Red 2965 (1993). See also, MM 1, 1991. This section of^ the rules, now redestgnated Docket 92-259, 8 FCC Red 4142 (1993).

2737 DA 95-410 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 6 adopted in the Report and Order, cable systems were re [This subsection) establishes certain criteria which the quired to commence carriage of local broadcast stations Commission shall consider in acting on requests to entitled to must-carry status beginning June 2, 1993.8 On modify the geographic area in which stations have June 17, 1993, local broadcast stations were required to signal carriage rights. These factors are not intended make their initial election of either must-carry or to be exclusive, but may be used to demonstrate that retransmission consent status and notify cable systems of a community is part of a particular station©s their election.9 Those broadcast stations which elected market. 12 must-carry status were required to notify the cable system of their preferred channel position at that time.10 8. The Commission provided guidance in its Report and 6. Under the Act, however, the Commission is also di Order, MM Docket 92-259, supra, to aid decision making in rected to consider changes in ADI areas. Section 614(h) of these matters, as follows: the 1992 Cable Act provides that the Commission may: For example, the historical carriage of the station with respect to a particular television broadcast sta could be illustrated by the submission of documents tion, include additional communities within its tele listing the cable system©s channel line-up (e.g., rate vision market or exclude communities from such cards) for a period of years. To show that the station station©s television market to better effectuate the provides coverage or other local service to the cable purposes of this section. community (factor 2), parties may demonstrate that the station places a Grade B coverage contour over In considering such requests, the Act provides that: the cable community or is located close to the com munity in terms of mileage. Coverage of news or other programming of interest to the community the Commission shall afford particular attention to could be demonstrated by program logs or other the value of localism by taking into account such descriptions of local program offerings. The final fac factors as - tor concerns viewing patterns in the cable commu (I) whether the station, or other stations located in nity in cable and noncable homes. Audience data the same area, have been historically carried on the clearly provide appropriate evidence about this fac cable system or systems within such community; tor. In this regard, we note that surveys such as those (II) whether the television station provides coverage used to demonstrate significantly viewed status could or other local service to such community; be useful. However, since this factor requires us to evaluate viewing on a community basis for cable and (III) whether any other television station that is eli noncable homes, and significantly viewed surveys gible to be carried by a cable system in such commu typically measure viewing only in noncable house nity in fulfillment of the requirements of this section holds, such surveys may need to be supplemented provides news coverage of issues of concern to such with additional data concerning viewing in cable community or provides carriage or coverage of sport homes. Id. at 1977 (emphasis in original). ing and other events of interest to the community; and 9. In adopting rules to implement this provision, the (IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and Commission indicated that changes requested should be noncable households within the areas served by the considered on a community-by-community basis rather cable system or systems in such community. 11 than on a county-by-county basis and that they should be treated as specific to particular stations rather than ap 7. The legislative history of this provision indicates that: plicable in common to all stations in the market. 13 The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage where the presumption in favor of ADI carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request. 14 would result in cable subscribers losing access to local stations because they are outside the ADI in 10. Adding communities to a station©s ADI generally which a local cable system operates, the FCC may entitles that station to insist on cable carriage in those make an adjustment to include or exclude particular communities. However, this right is subject to several con communities from a television station©s market con ditions: 1) a cable system operator is generally required to sistent with Congress© objective to ensure that televi devote no more than one-third of its activated channel sion stations be carried in the areas which they serve capacity to compliance with the mandatory signal carriage and which form their economic market. 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

8 47 C.F.R. § 76.56(a) (b). But see Turner Broadcasting System, than necessary to further such protection. Id. at 2451. Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 114 S. Ct. 2445 47 C.F.R. § 76.64(f) (1). (1994). In remanding the case, the Court determined that issues 47 C.F.R. § 76.57(d). of material fact must be resolved by the lower court. Specifi 47 U.S.C. §534(h) (1) (C) (ii). cally, the Court indicated that the government must show that H.R. Rep. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2nd Sess. 97 (1992). the must-carry provisions are necessary to alleviate the alleged MM Docket 92-259, 8 FCC Red at 2977, n.139. harms and that they do not burden substantially more speech 47 C.F.R. §76.59.

2738 10 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-410

copyright liability resulting from carriage; and 4) the sys dence of these discrepancies, KXTV attached a letter from tem operator is not required to carry the signal of any Nielsen testifying to the inaccuracies of the KPIX data. 19 station whose signal substantially duplicates the signal of Moreover, KXTV believes that KPIX©s slightly higher any other local signal carried or the signals of more than viewership for network programming is due largely to one local station affiliated with a particular broadcast net KPIX©s fortuitous channel position (channel 5) rather than work. If, pursuant to these requirements, a system operator to viewer loyalty. KXTV contends that during periods of elects to carry the signal of only a single affiliate of a non-network programming, it consistently commands a broadcast network, it is obliged to carry the affiliate from higher viewing share than KPIX,20 while the Sacramento within the ADI whose city of license is closest to the stations in general are watched by 50% of all households principal headend of the cable system. 15 Accordingly, based during the same period. KXTV challenges KPIX©s claim to on the specific circumstances involved, the addition of be the "single most important source of television news to communities to a station©s ADI may guarantee it cable the people of Fairfield-Suisun" by noting that petitioner carriage and specific channel position rights or simply does not offer any figures to support its position other than provide the system operator with an expanded list of must- its claim to have aired 47 local news stories in 15 months. carry signals from which to choose, i.e., when it has used Of those 47 stories, KXTV points out, 19 concerned a up its channel capacity mandated for broadcast signal car single kidnapping, 8 a child molester, and the remaining riage, or determined which of duplicating network affili 20 local crime. In comparison, KXTV states that during ated stations are entitled to carriage priority. approximately the same period of time it aired 500 local news stories concerning the Solano County area, as well as numerous special interest stories. KXTV maintains that in III. ADI MODIFICATION AND MUST-CARRY fact two-thirds of all viewers in East Solano County rely on ARGUMENTS Sacramento stations for their weekday news. Finally, KXTV 11. The communities here in question are all in Solano indicates that it has already been informed by Multivision, County East, California, which is located between San that due to channel capacity constraints, it will drop KXTV Francisco and Sacramento on the Sacramento-Stockton, from its Fairfield system should the Commission grant California side of the boundary between the San Francisco KPIX©s petition (because KPIX is located closer to and Sacramento-Stockton, ADIs. Multivision©s Fairfield headend than KXTV). KXTV argues, 12. In support of its petition, KPIX contends that Fair- therefore, that a grant of KPIX©s request would create a field is located approximately equi-distant between San severe economic impact on KXTV that would be contrary Francisco and Sacramento, and that not only do a substan to the Commission©s instructions regarding modifying ADI tial number of its residents commute to San Francisco to Markets to "ensure that disruption to subscribers over©the work, but also Fairfield©s government and other public broadcast signals they receive is minimized."21 services are affiliated with San Francisco rather than Sac 14. KOVR maintains in its opposition that KPIX fails to ramento. While petitioner admits that the Sacramento sta satisfy 3 out of 4 of the guidelines provided by the Com tions are more easily viewable off-the-air due to an mission. It argues that: a) petitioner covers little news and intervening mountain range, it argues that since Fairfield is events of particular interest to Fairfield; b) KOVR and the located very close to the San Francisco ADI border, the other Sacramento stations provide significant local cov San Francisco stations, including KPIX, receive a greater erage; and c) local viewing patterns indicate that Fairfield percentage of cable viewing in the area.16 In addition, KPIX residents rely on the Sacramento stations for their local asserts that it has a higher percentage of viewing in Fair- news and other programming. KOVR argues that while it field as a CBS affiliate than does KXTV, the comparable devotes considerable attention to the news and events of Sacramento CBS affiliate, and that KPIX has been carried the Fairfield area in numerous news programs, KPIX has on the Fairfield cable system since 1972. Moreover, KPIX aired only a few, none of which focused specifically on the maintains, it routinely covers news and local events for the daily lives and opinions of Fairfield residents. KOVR states Fairfield area,17 and that it is the "single most important that all the Sacramento stations provide significantly stron source" for such information. ger over-the-air signals than KPIX and the transmitters of 13. In its opposition, KXTV, the Sacramento CBS affili all three Sacramento network stations are at least 10 miles ate, contends that the Nielsen figures cited by KPIX are closer to Fairfield than that of KPIX. KOVR points to the misstated in that they do not specify dayparts for which the 1993 Nielsen County Coverage study which demonstrates figures are achieved, nor do they indicate whether the that the Sacramento stations© viewership is clearly domi dayparts include cable, noncable or total shares.18 As evi nant in the area.22 KOVR concludes that because of the

15 MM Docket 92-259, 8 FCC Red at 2981. households. Further, it maintains that nowhere in the same 16 KPIX states that according to the 1992 Nielsen County survey do Sacramento stations achieve a 29.5% share of viewing. Coverage it and the other San Francisco stations have a com See Exhibit A to KXTV opposition. bined 43% share of all day audience viewership in Fairfield as 19 See Exhibit C to KXTV opposition. opposed to 34% for the Sacramento stations. (KPIX originally 20 For instance, during the 4-6 p.m. daypart KXTV states it reported that the viewership figure for the Sacramento stations commands a 14% share of the non-network viewership as op was 29.5%. This information was amended in a letter dated posed to 4% for KPIX. See Exhibit A to KXTV opposition. August 11, 1993.) 21 MM Docket 92-259, 8 FCC Red 2965, 2976 (1993). 17 KPIX states that it aired nearly 50 news stories concerning 22 KOVR states that the 1993 Nielsen study indicates a 45% Fairfield in just 15 months. share of total television household viewing viewership in both 18 KXTV states that the only measurement where San Fran cable and noncable homes for the Sacramento stations as op cisco stations combine to deliver a 43% share in the Fairfield posed to 38% share of total viewing for San Francisco stations, area for 1992 is the M-F, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daypart for cable and that KPIX received an 8% share of total viewing. KOVR also states that during local news programs at H-.OO p.m. the

2739 DA 95-410 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 6 geographic continuity and flat terrain of the Fairfield and 17. In its comments on Multivision©s request for clari Sacramento areas, Fairfield residents share the same daily fication, KFTL-TV argues that Multivision is mistaken in rural concerns and interests of the Sacramento residents. its belief that it must continue to carry all of the San 15. KCRA-TV states in its opposition that it fully sup Francisco stations until KPIX©s petition is resolved. It re ports the arguments raised by KXTV. KCRA-TV submits an quests that the Commission issue a clear statement that engineering study which indicates that: a) the center of ADI petitions must be filed by one individual station and Fairfield is closer to Sacramento than to San Francisco; b) that the operator must maintain the status-quo only with the transmitter sites of the three Sacramento-Stockton net respect to that station until action by the Commission. This work stations are 10.7 miles closer to Fairfield than the is particularly important, KFTL-TV asserts, given that it is transmitter of KPIX; and c) the greater proximity of the a station with must-carry rights in the Sacramento ADI Sacramento stations produces a predicted signal strength at whose right to be carried on Multivision©s system is cur Fairfield that exceeds that of the San Francisco stations by rently being denied due to the operator©s misinterpretation 8 to 10 dB.23 In fact, KCRA-TV contends, the actual signal of the Commission©s Rules. disparity is even greater due to the substantial terrain bar 18. Finally, KCMY©s complaint (CSR-4146-M) echoes rier between the San Francisco stations and Fairfield. As a KFTL©s arguments stating that an operator©s obligation to result, the Sacramento-Stockton stations that lie east of the maintain its channel line-up status quo does not preclude terrain barrier have a decided viewership advantage. Fur the addition of must-carry eligible stations during the pen thermore, KCRA-TV argues that the 1993 Nielsen County dency of an ADI petition. Coverage data for East Solano County indicates that on a full-week basis (7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.) the Sacramento stations obtain an 85% viewing share in noncable homes as IV. DISCUSSION OF ADI ISSUES compared to a combined share of only 14% for the San 19. As a preliminary matter, it is necessary to address Francisco stations.24 KCRA-TV states that due to its exten Multivision©s claim that KPIX is improperly requesting a sive coverage of news and local events its viewing share on market modification for stations other than itself. Section a full-day basis (both cable and noncable) is almost double 614(h)(l)(C)(i) of the 1992 Cable Act states that the "Com that of KPIX and 50% higher than San Francisco©s highest mission may, with respect to a particular television broad rated station, KGO-TV (ABC, Ch. 7). KCRA-TV concludes cast station, include additional communities within its that grant of KPIX©s request would not reflect the actual television market or exclude communities from such sta marketplace conditions, but merely change those condi tion©s television market to better effectuate the purposes of tions to KPIX©s advantage. this section (emphasis supplied)." In addition, the Commis 16. In its comments, Multivision©s argues that KPIX©s sion has stated that ADI modifications would be treated as petition should be denied because the petition requests specific to particular stations rather than applicable to all more relief than it is entitled pursuant to §614(h)(l)(C) of stations in the market.26 Thus, we agree with Multivision the 1992 Cable Act. Specifically, Multivision contends that that KPIX©s petition can only properly be on its own KPIX appears to request that the modification apply not behalf. The KPIX petition, however, seeks relief "to ensure only to its signal but to all the San Francisco stations as that cable television viewers in the Fairfield-Suisun market well.25 Furthermore, in a later request for clarification continue to receives those San Francisco signals they have and/or expedited action, Multivision states that KPIX©s peti been accustomed to viewing" and presents evidence de tion has precipitated a number of difficult and conflicting signed to demonstrate that "Fairfield-Suisun should be part choices for the system, and it has been severely constrained of San Francisco©s must carry market." Thus, as a matter of in its ability to structure its channel line-up for the best general process, it would be difficult to grant KPIX the interests of its subscribers. It contends that since the filing relief requested. However, even if we were to construe this of the modification request it has been precluded by the request as applicable to KPIX and its circumstances alone "status quo" provisions of the 1992 Cable Act from drop rather than those of other San Francisco broadcast stations, ping any of its currently-carried San Francisco stations a case has not been made out to grant the market change until such time as there is a resolution of KPIX©s petition. requested. As a result of the combined carriage.of both San Francisco 20. As stated in the Report and Order implementing the and Sacramento stations, Multivision argues that it is cur mandatory carriage requirements,27 the 1992 Cable Act rently devoting the required one-third of its channel capac permits the Commission to add or subtract communities ity to must-carry channels. It therefore requests that the from a television stations market to better reflect market Commission either rule on the existing petition or clarify place conditions or to promote the goal of localism that it is not required to add any future must-carry chan underlying the signal carriage provisions. As guidance, the nels until such time as the current impasse is resolved. Commission listed the four factors set out above, but also stated that the types of evidence considered should not be

Sacramento stations receive a 54% share compared to the San the viewers in Solano County East rely on the Sacramento Francisco stations© 32% share, and KPIX©s share of 6% during network affiliates, as opposed to 37% who depend on the San this time period. Francisco stations. 23 Attachment A to KCRA opposition, Engineering Statement: 25 In addition to the arguments raised above, Multivision as Television Service in Fairfield, California from Network Sta serts that KPIX©s petition should be dismissed because it failed tions in Sacramento/Stockton and San Francisco, by Jules Co- to serve all interested parties. KPIX rectified its omission by hen & Associates, P.C. (Executed Aug. 11, 1993). submitting an amended service list. 24 KCRA-TV claims that for local news programs the 63% of 26 See also MM Docket 92-259, 8 FCC Red at 2977 n.139. 27 Id. at 2976.

2740 10 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-410

restricted because each case will be unique.28 The Sac- shown that other stations do not serve the communities at ramento-Stockton ADI was created by Arbitron as a sepa issue. Because the opposing stations appear to better serve rate and distinct ADI from San Francisco, with Solano the Fairfield communities, this factor does not weigh in County specifically divided into western and eastern por favor of the relief requested. tions, based in part on a significant terrain barrier dividing 24. Similarly, regarding the fourth factor, although KPIX the two ADI©s. Because of this barrier, in the Fairfield area has submitted evidence of viewership in the relevant com Sacramento stations are more easily viewable off the air. As munities, a review of the 1992 Nielsen audience study KPIX itself concedes "because of terrain factors, KPIX is submitted by KPIX indicates that these data are for the all very difficult to view off the air." In terms of total over- day viewership share in cable homes only.29 Such data is the-air audience as reflected in 1993-94 Arbitron data, Sac- not directly responsive to the standards in the 1992 Cable ramento-Stockton rather than San Francisco stations are Act and in the Commission©s rules that seek evidence on preferred by viewers in the area by a wide margin; an 85% audiences for both cable and noncable households.30 share for Sacramento-Stockton market stations versus only Arbitron©s 1993 data and the 1992 Nielsen data indicate 13% for San Francisco stations. KXTV, the Sacramento that KPIX attains an average 8 share of total weekly view CBS affiliate that competes most directly with KPIX has, ing hours and an average 57 net weekly circulation share according to the 1993-94 Arbitron data, four times the in Solano East County. However, what these statistics do over-the-air audience as KPIX. not show is that the majority of KPIX©s viewing share is 21. The other information submitted does not suggest attributed to cable households. For non-cable county view that a preferable allocation of the area in question between ing, KPIX attains an average of only 4 share of total weekly the markets is available or that to grant the request would viewing hours and an average of only 17 net weekly cir "better effectuate the purposes" of the applicable statutory culation share.31 By examining cable and noncable viewing provisions. With regard to the first of the statutory guide separately, we see that without the benefit of cable carriage, lines, whether the station, or other stations located in the KPIX would not be widely viewed in the Fairfield area. same area, have been historically carried on the cable Accordingly, KPIX©s all day viewing share does not support system or systems within the community in question, KPIX a showing of localism. has demonstrated a history of carriage on Multivision©s 25. While KPIX has provided evidence attempting to Fairfield system. However, it appears that the system car show that it provides local service to the Fairfield area, the ries and has historically carried signals from both the San nature of the evidence submitted, combined with the exis Francisco and the Sacramento-Stockton television market. tence of other market factors such as the substantial terrain Thus, this fact alone is of marginal assistance in resolving barrier separating the two ADI©s and the significant differ the issue of whether the Fairfield communities should be ences in over-the-air audience lead us to conclude that moved into KPIX©s market. grant of KPIX-TV©s petition is not in the public interest. 22. Regarding the second guideline, KPIX has shown that it provides coverage of and service to the relevant commu nities. In fact, in an effort to show that KXTV provides a V. DISCUSSION OF MUST CARRY ISSUE stronger signal in the Fairfield area, and that KPIX is not 26. Given our resolution of KPIX©s ADI modification widely viewable off-air. KXTV submitted an engineering petition, the grounds set forth by Multivision in opposition study which shows the availability of a measured Grade B to Ponce Nicasio©s request for carriage of KCMY no longer signal level in the relevant areas. We note, however, that exist. Accordingly, it is appropriate that Multivision com there appears to be little dispute that the Sacramento sta ply with the must carry rules with respect to that station. tions place an even higher signal level over the Fairfield area. Furthermore, KPIX has submitted evidence of nu merous programs specific to the relevant communities. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES Again, however, the local service of KPIX©s programming 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section is of less weight when viewed in relation to that provided 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 by the Sacramento stations. KXTV, KOVR and KCRA all U.S.C. 534) and Section 76.59 of the Commission©s Rules submitted evidence showing that the frequency and subject (47 C.F.R. Section 76.59), that the captioned petition for matter of their programming reflects more extensive cov special relief filed June 2, 1993 by Group W Television IS erage of news and other local interests than that provided DENIED. by KPIX. 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaint 23. KPIX has not fully addressed the third factor - filed on October 27, 1993 by Ponce Nicasio Broadcasting whether other stations entitled to carriage provide news Company (KCMY) IS GRANTED. and other programming of concern or interest to the com munities in question. However, as stated above, the stations opposing KPIX©s petition filed substantial evidence which meets this guideline. We believe this criterion was primar ily intended to enhance a station©s claim where it could be

28 W. at 2977. 31 We recognize that this data is county data rather than 29 According to the 1993 Nielsen County Coverage Study, the community specific, but in the absence of evidence that it is not Sacramento stations had a 45% share of all day audience as representative of general viewing patterns in the subject areas opposed to 38% for the San Francisco stations. See Attachment we shall accept it as probative. Arbitron©s 1993 County Coverage C to KCRA opposition. Surveys, Standard/Fringe Volume. 30 These data may be presented for cable and noncable house holds separately or combined.

2741 DA 95-410 ___Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red NO. 6

29. In accordance with § 614(d)(3) (47 U.S.C. 534) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Multlvision Cable TV Corporation IS ORDERED to commence car riage of Station KCMY-TV, forty-five (45) days from the release of this ORDER. 30. These actions are taken pursuant to authority dele gated by Section 0.321 of the Commission©s Rules.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau

2742