Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of:                | * | CSR-6277-A                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Comcast of California/Idaho,     | ) |                              |
| Inc.                             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Comcast of                       |   |                              |
| Montana/Indiana/Kentucky/Utah    | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Comcast of Utah II, Inc.         | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| For Modification of the Salt     | * |                              |
| Lake City,                       |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Utah DMA                         | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: May 10, 2004** **Released: May 12, 2004**

By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  Comcast of California/Idaho, Inc., Comcast of
    Montana/Indiana/Kentucky/Utah, and Comcast of Utah II, Inc.
    (collectively "Comcast"), filed the above-captioned petition for
    special relief seeking to modify the Salt Lake City, Utah designated
    market area ("DMA") with respect to television broadcast station
    KUTF (Ch. 3), Price, Utah ("KUTF"). Specifically, Comcast requests
    that KUTF be excluded, for purposes of the cable television
    mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules, from 116 communities
    served by its various cable systems located in the Salt Lake City
    DMA.[^1] An opposition to this petition was filed on behalf of Price
    Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of KUTF, to which Comcast replied. For
    the reasons stated below, we deny Comcast's request, in part, but
    otherwise grant its request.

# background

2.  Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing
    rules adopted by the Commission in *Implementation of the Cable
    Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
    Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues ("Must Carry Order"),* commercial
    television broadcast stations are entitled to assert mandatory
    carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's
    market.[^2] A station's market for this purpose is its "designated
    market area," or DMA, as defined by Nielsen Media Research.[^3] A
    DMA 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.[^4]

3.  Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider
    changes in market 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.[^5]

    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 --

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(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;

(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households
     within

> the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.[^6]

The legislative history of the provision states that:

where the presumption in favor of \[DMA\] carriage would result in cable

subscribers losing access to local stations because they are outside the

\[DMA\] 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 area in 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.[^7]

In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated
that requested changes 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.[^8]

4.  In the *Modification Final Report and Order,* the Commission, in an
    effort to promote administrative efficiency, adopted a standardized
    evidence approach for modification petitions that requires the
    following evidence be submitted:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and

    geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend
    locations,

    terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage
    between the

    community and the television station transmitter site,
    transportation routes

    and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market.

(2) Grade B contour maps delineating the station's technical service

    area and showing the location of the cable system headends and
    communities

    in relation to the service areas.

    Note to Paragraph (b)(2): Service area maps using Longley-Rice

    (version 1.2.2) propagation curves may also be included to support

    a technical service exhibit.[^9]

(3) Available data on shopping and labor patterns in the local

    market.

(4) Television station programming information derived from station

    logs or the local edition of the television guide.

(5) Cable system channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing

    historic carriage, such as television guide listings.

(6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its

    average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over

    Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for
    both

    cable and noncable households or other specific audience indicia,
    such

    as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution
    records.[^10]

    Petitions for special relief to modify television markets that do
    not include the above evidence shall be dismissed without prejudice
    and may be re-filed at a later date with the appropriate filing fee.
    The *Modification Final Report and Order* provides that parties may
    continue to submit whatever additional evidence they deem
    appropriate and relevant.

# DISCUSSIOn

5.  The issue before us is whether to grant Comcast's request to exclude
    KUTF from mandatory carriage on the subject cable systems. All of
    the communities at issue are located in the Salt Lake City DMA, as
    is KUTF, which is licensed to Price, Utah. Considering all of the
    relevant factual circumstances in the record, we believe that the
    market modification petition is a legitimate request to redraw DMA
    boundaries to make them congruous with market realities.

6.  The first statutory factor we must consider is "whether the station,
    or other stations located in the same area, have been historically
    carried on the cable system or systems within such community."[^11]
    Comcast states that KUTF has no history of carriage on the subject
    cable systems.[^12] Comcast argues that because KUTF has never been
    carried, there would be no disruption of established viewing
    patterns, nor would the requested action deprive the station of any
    existing cable audience.[^13] KUTF argues that Comcast has
    inappropriately applied the historic carriage factor to KUTF because
    as a station that has been on-the-air for less than a year it has
    not had time to establish historic carriage.[^14] In any event, KUTF
    notes that as a specialty station the historic carriage factor is
    not outcome determinative in a market modification proceeding.[^15]
    Comcast argues that the Commission has consistently held that while
    the historical carriage factor might not be determinative in and of
    itself, it is significant in market modification requests when the
    broadcaster has failed to meet the other statutory factors.[^16]

7.  Second, we consider "whether the television station provides
    coverage or other local service to such community."[^17] Comcast
    states that a Longley-Rice study demonstrates that the majority of
    the communities at issue are well beyond KUTF's Grade B service
    area.[^18] Comcast admits that a few communities, however, do lie on
    the fringe of KUTF's Grade B coverage area according to the same
    Longley-Rice study.[^19] Comcast maintains that KUTF's general lack
    of signal coverage is hardly surprising considering that the average
    distance between Price, Utah and the communities is 119 miles.[^20]
    Comcast points out that these distances exceed those found to
    justify other similar market modification requests.[^21] Comcast
    states the lack of nexus between KUTF and the communities is also
    demonstrated by the driving distance and time. For instance, Comcast
    states that it takes an estimated 4 hours to drive the approximately
    215 miles from Price to Lewiston, Utah due to the terrain separating
    the communities.[^22] Finally, Comcast argues that KUTF does not
    appear to provide any local programming tailored to the communities
    at issue.[^23] Comcast asserts that it unable to locate any program
    listings for KUTF in *The Salt Lake City Tribune,* the paper serving
    the residents of the communities, or the local edition of *TV
    Guide*.[^24]

8.  KUTF argues that this is not a typical market modification
    proceeding and the Bureau should not base the outcome of the case
    primarily on Grade B coverage because other, more important factors,
    are at play in the Salt Lake City DMA.[^25] KUTF states that it is
    one of only two local Spanish-language full-power television
    stations licensed to the Salt Lake City DMA.[^26] KUTF points out
    that the Hispanic/Latino population of the Salt Lake City DMA is
    rapidly growing.[^27] Despite this, KUTF states that Comcast carries
    local Spanish-language programming on less than one-third of its
    systems, thus depriving many of its Hispanic/Latino subscribers
    access to this important type of programming.[^28] Although more
    than 150,000 Utah residents speak Spanish, KUTF asserts that Comcast
    is doing everything in its power to ensure that its subscribers are
    deprived of the opportunity to access the more than 20 hours of
    local Spanish-language programming that KUTF provides its viewers
    each week as well as the Telefutura programming it provides.[^29]
    KUTF notes, for instance, that in Salt Lake City, Comcast offers
    only one local Spanish-language station -- KUTH.[^30] On seven out
    ten of its cable systems in the DMA, however, KUTF states that
    Comcast carries no Spanish-language stations, despite having
    Spanish-speaking residents in the communities.[^31] KUTF argues
    that, according to the online version of the *Cable & Television
    FactBook,* Comcast has more than enough channel capacity on its
    various cable systems to accommodate carriage of KUTF.[^32] KUTF
    states that instead of carrying a truly local station, however,
    Comcast wastes its channel capacity by carrying television stations
    that have no carriage rights in the DMA.[^33] For instance, KUTF
    notes that Comcast carries station KCBY-TV, Coos Bay, Oregon, which
    is approximately 650 miles from the communities and station KIDK,
    Idaho Falls, Idaho, which, given the terrain, is unlikely to provide
    any actual Grade B coverage.[^34] KUTF argues that Comcast should
    not be allowed to obtain an order from the Bureau deleting KUTF from
    cable communities for its alleged failure to provide either actual
    or predicted Grade B coverage, predicted or otherwise. KUTF argues
    that in *Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P.,* the Commission refused to
    allow a cable operator to delete cable communities from a station's
    market for its failure to provide Grade B coverage when the cable
    operator chose to carry other stations, licensed to the same city,
    which also failed to provide the communities with Grade B
    coverage.[^35] With regard to local programming, KUTF argues that it
    has developed a top-quality local programming schedule which
    provides viewers with more than 20 hours of local news, weather and
    other local information per week.[^36]

9.  KUTF states that, in terms of square mileage, the Salt Lake City DMA
    is the largest market in the United States and much of the terrain
    is rural, isolated and mountainous.[^37] As a result, KUTF maintains
    that the vastness of the DMA makes it impossible for any local
    television station in the market to provide actual Grade B coverage
    to more than a small portion of the market.[^38] As a result, KUTF
    argues that carriage of local stations on cable and direct broadcast
    systems serving the DMA is critical, not only so residents can be
    provided with good quality signals, but so that stations in the
    market can survive. KUTF asserts that this survival is even harder
    when a station such as KUTF is classified as a "specialty station"
    because they typically attract limited audience.[^39] KUTF states
    that, as shown in the Longley-Rice study it submits, it provides
    actual Grade B coverage to the following cable communities: American
    Fork, Copperton, Elk Ridge, Herber City, Herriman, Jeremy Ranch,
    Lehi, Lindon, Mapleton, Midway, Nephi, Orem, Payson, Pleasant Grove,
    Pleasant View, Provo, Salem, Spanish Fork and Springville,
    Utah.[^40] KUTF concludes that if the Bureau grants Comcast, Utah's
    larges cable operator, the instant request, it would have a severe
    effect on KUTF's future economic success

10. Comcast argues in reply that KUTF's attempt to use the vast
    distances and geographic barriers of the Salt Lake City DMA as an
    excuse to provide a signal beyond a limited area only underscores
    the limits of the station's actual television market and affirm its
    lack of local nexus with the subject communities. As Congress
    explained, the market modification provisions "reflect a recognition
    that . . . a community within a station's \[DMA\] may be so far
    removed from the station that it cannot be deemed part of the
    station's market."[^41] Comcast maintains that is the case here
    where the average distance is 119 miles and individual distances
    range as high as 175 miles.[^42] Comcast notes that, instead of
    providing any relevant evidence that would have established a nexus
    with the subject communities, KUTF chose to focus on Comcast's
    carriage of two distant stations, KCBY and KDIK, on certain of its
    cable systems.[^43] Comcast asserts, however, that carriage of these
    stations says nothing about a nexus between KUTF and the subject
    communities. Comcast states that the majority of stations carried on
    its systems are licensed to Salt Lake City, Ogden and Provo, Utah.
    Comcast argues that this carriage is consistent with the "hub and
    spoke" model described in *WLNY-TV, Inc. v. FCC*.[^44] In that
    decision, Comcast states, the Second Circuit observed that viewers
    tune in to stations located in a central metropolitan region (the
    "hub") with programming of widespread interest throughout the DMA,
    whereas outlying communities (the "spokes") generally feature
    programming of interest to those communities in closer proximity to
    the station.[^45] Comcast states that in this case the residents of
    the cable communities clearly look to the Salt Lake City
    metropolitan "hub" area, including nearby Ogden and Provo, for news
    and information and that residents of the "hub" communities would
    not look to the cable communities for their programming.[^46]
    Comcast asserts, therefore, that it is irrelevant that Comcast
    carries the DMA's "hub" stations or that those stations happen to be
    further away from the cable communities than KUTF and their carriage
    on Comcast's systems say nothing about a nexus between KUTF and the
    communities at issue.[^47] Moreover, KUTF's reliance on *Brenmor
    Cable* is misplaced.[^48] In that case, Comcast notes, the
    Commission rejected a modification request to exclude a station
    licensed to the same community as seven other television stations
    carried by the cable operator. Comcast states that in this instance,
    however, it does not carry any other stations licensed to the same
    community as KUTF.[^49]

11. Comcast argues further that it is undisputed that the vast majority
    of the cable communities are beyond KUTF's Grade B service area
    according to Longley-Rice.[^50] Comcast points out that KUTF
    essentially concedes the absence of Grade B coverage to all but 19
    of the communities at issue.[^51] In any event, Comcast argues that
    for the relatively few communities for which KUTF claims Grade B
    coverage, KUTF is overly restrictive in its reading of Comcast's
    Longley-Rice map and overly generous in interpreting its own
    coverage map.[^52] Comcast states that, despite KUTF's assertions,
    Comcast's and KUTF's Longley-Rice maps clearly show that KUTF fails
    to provide Grade B coverage to 12 of these 19 communities: American
    Fork, Copperton, Elk Ridge, Herriman, Jeremy Ranch, Lehi, Lindon,
    Mapleton, Nephi, Orem, Pleasant View and Salem.[^53] Comcast
    maintains that a careful review of both parties' Longley-Rice maps
    reveals that KUTF can claim only that it may provide fringe Grade B
    coverage, at best, to a total of just seven communities: Heber City,
    Midway, Pleasant Grove, Payson, Provo, Spanish Fork and
    Springville.[^54] Comcast argues, however, that such theoretical
    coverage is inconclusive and insufficient to overcome KUTF's lack of
    nexus with the cable communities. Comcast maintains that it remains
    highly unlikely, as demonstrated by signal strength studies, that
    KUTF provides an adequate over-the-air signal to individual
    households in these communities.[^55] Comcast argues that, contrary
    to KUTF's assertions, the Commission has previously considered
    signal strength tests relevant in the market modification
    context.[^56] While Comcast admits that it may have inadvertently
    omitted a small number of cable communities from its Longley-Rice
    maps, this omission is not of decisional significance and KUTF does
    not claim to have been prejudiced by a failure to identify these
    communities.[^57] Indeed, Comcast points out that not only did KUTF
    file an earlier must carry complaint against Comcast requesting
    carriage in these communities, but these communities were located on
    its own Longley-Rice maps.[^58] Further, while KUTF relies almost
    entirely on its Spanish-language programming format to establish a
    nexus with the cable communities, it offers virtually no description
    of any truly local programming.[^59] Comcast states that the
    Commission has consistently held that programming is not "local"
    simply by virtue of its foreign language format.[^60] The Commission
    has also found on numerous occasions that it is "not convinced that
    such \[Spanish language\] programming, while of potential general
    interest, is the kind that suggests that the subject communities, in
    total, are a particular focus of the station or are in any sense in
    a manner that establishes a specific market connection."[^61]
    Comcast points out that the majority of KUTF's programming is
    identical to TeleFutura's nationwide program network.[^62] Comcast
    states that while this DMA-wide programming may appeal to general
    audiences, it does not indicate a focus on news and events specific
    to the communities at issue. Finally, Comcast states that KUTF is in
    error in its assumption that Comcast is deliberately discriminating
    against Spanish-language programming in the cable communities.
    Comcast states that it has shown that it carries Spanish-language
    programmer Univision in the majority of the communities and an
    entire Spanish-language programming tier, consisting of ten
    Spanish-language networks, in many of the communities at issue.[^63]
    In addition, Comcast states that it carries KUTF's affiliated
    station KUTH in at least 75 of the communities at issue and low
    power station KSVN-TV, Ogden, Utah, on its Salt Lake City system
    which broadcasts Azteca America.[^64]

12. The third statutory factor we must consider is "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."[^65] Comcast states that it currently
    carries several stations licensed in and around Salt Lake and Weber
    Counties that more than adequately cover news and weather pertinent
    to the cable communities.[^66] KUTF argues that, despite its claims,
    Comcast, failed to note one single program on any station it carries
    that referenced the subject cable communities.[^67] Comcast states
    that as shown in the examples it provides, the stations it currently
    carries do provide programming that addresses news, weather, sports
    and issues of interest and events occurring in the cable
    communities.[^68]

13. The fourth statutory factor concerns "evidence of viewing patterns
    in cable and noncable households within the areas served by the
    cable system or systems in such community."[^69] Comcast states that
    because KUTF is generally unable to deliver an off-air signal or a
    Grade B signal to communities at issue, it is not surprising that it
    has been unable to find any viewership figures for KUTF in either
    cable or noncable households for any county in the Salt Lake City
    DMA.[^70] KUTF states that, as with historic carriage, the
    Commission has found that the viewing patterns factor in a specialty
    station's case is not outcome determinative.[^71] Moreover, KUTF
    notes that it has been on-the-air for less than a year and the
    Commission has held that it takes years for a television station to
    establish viewing patterns and ratings.[^72] As with historic
    carriage, Comcast argues that this is a factor that, while not
    outcome determinative itself, is not overlooked when other market
    modification factors are not met.[^73]

14. Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act authorizes the
    Commission to include or exclude particular communities from a
    television station's market for the purpose of ensuring that a
    television station is carried in the areas which it serves and which
    form its economic market.[^74] Section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) specifically
    and unambiguously directs the Commission, in considering requests
    for market modification, to afford particular attention to the value
    of localism by taking such matters into account.[^75] In this
    matter, KUTF has no history of carriage and no discernable
    viewership in the communities at issue. As a relatively new
    specialty station, we do not afford considerable weight to these
    deficiencies. In addition, although KUTF has alleged that it
    provides local programming to the communities at issue, it provided
    no programming examples pointing to individual communities. It is
    also clear that KUTF is geographically distant from the majority of
    communities, up to 181 miles distant; that it fails to provide a
    Grade B signal according to Longley-Rice and is separated by
    geographic barriers such as a national forest and mountainous
    terrain. For these communities, the factors recited by Comcast do
    weigh in favor of its request and we grant its request. For the
    following communities, however, we find that other factors deserve
    more weight and we deny Comcast's request to exclude them: American
    Fork, Elk Ridge, Heber City, Lehi, Lindon, Mapleton, Midway, Nephi,
    Orem, Payson, Pleasant Grove, Provo, Salem, Spanish Fork, Spring
    Lake and Springville. Our review indicates that these communities
    are not only geographically closer to KUTF at distances ranging from
    54 to 79 miles, but both the station's predicted Grade B contour
    appears to encompass the communities and the it provides Grade B
    coverage according to the Longley-Rice study provided by
    Comcast.[^76]

# ORDERING CLAUSES

15. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED,** pursuant to Section 614(h) 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
    captioned petition for special relief (CSR-6277-A), filed by Comcast
    of California/Idaho, Inc., Comcast of Montana/Indiana/Kentucky/Utah,
    and Comcast of Utah II, Inc. **IS DENIED** for the communities of
    American Fork, Elk Ridge, Heber City, Lehi, Lindon, Mapleton,
    Midway, Nephi, Orem, Payson, Pleasant Grove, Provo, Salem, Spanish
    Fork, Spring Lake and Springville, Utah and **IS OTHERWISE
    GRANTED.**

16. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section
    0.283 of the Commission's rules.[^77]

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Steven A. Broeckaert

    Deputy Chief, Policy Division

    Media Bureau

    Appendix I

    [Salt Lake City System]{.underline}

    Alpine

    Al's Apple Acre Mobile Home Park

    American Fork

    Bennion

    Bluffdale

    Bountiful

    Brigham City

    Centerville

    Clearfield

    Clinton

    Copperton

    Draper

    East Layton

    Elite Motor Home Park

    Elk Ridge Farmington

    Farr West

    Fruit Heights

    Harrisville

    Herriman

    Highland

    Hill Air Force Base

    Hooper

    Jeremy Ranch

    Kaysville

    Kearns

    Layton

    Lehi

    Lindon

    Magna

    Mapleton

    Midway

    Midvale

    Murray

    North Ogden

    North Salt Lake City

    Ogden

    Ogden Canyon

    Orem

    Park City

    Payson

    Perry

    Plain City

    Pleasant Grove

    Pleasant View

    Provo

    Riverdale

    Riverton

    Ron Clair

    Roy

    Salem

    Salt Lake City

    Sandy

    South Jordan

    South Ogden

    South Salt Lake City

    South Weber

    Spanish Fork

    Springlake

    Springville

    Sommerset Condonimiums

    Sunset

    Syracuse

    Taylorsville

    Uintah

    Warren

    Washington Terrace

    West Haven

    West Jordan

    West Ogden

    West Point

    West Valley City

    Willard

    Woods Corss

    [Logan System]{.underline}

    Clarkston

    Cornish

    Fairview, ID

    Franklin, ID

    Hyde Park

    Hyrum

    Lewiston

    Logan

    Millville

    Mendon

    Newton

    Nibley

    North Logan

    Paradise

    Providence

    Richmond

    River Heights

    Smithfield

    Wellsville

    [Morgan System]{.underline}

    Morgan City

    Mountain Green

    Stoddard

    [Fish Haven System]{.underline}

    St. Charles, ID

    Fish Haven, ID

    Garden City, UT

    [Tremonton System]{.underline}

    Bear River City

    Corinne

    Deweyville

    Fielding

    Garland

    Honeville

    Plymouth

    Riverside

    Tremonton

    [Nephi System]{.underline}

    Nephi

    [Heber System]{.underline}

    Heber City

    Midway

    [Coalville System]{.underline}

    Coalville

    Hoytsville

    [Preston System]{.underline}

    Preston, ID

    [Stansbury System]{.underline}

    Grantsville

    Stansbury

    Tooele

    Tooele Army Depot

[^1]: ^?^See Appendix I. Although 117 were listed by Comcast, one
    community was listed twice.

[^2]: ^?^8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2976-1977 (1993).

[^3]: ^?^Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, as amended by
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides that a station's market
    shall be determined by the Commission by regulation or order using,
    where available, commercial publications which delineate television
    markets based on viewing patterns. *See* 47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).
    Section 76.55(e) requires that a commercial broadcast television
    station's market be defined by Nielsen Media Research's DMAs. 47
    C.F.R. § 76.55(e); s*ee Definition of Markets for Purposes of the
    Cable Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules,* Order on
    Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8366
    (1999)(*"Modification Final Report and Order"*).

[^4]: ^?^For a more complete description of how counties are allocated,
    *see* Nielsen Media Research's *Nielsen Station Index: Methodology
    Techniques and Data Interpretation.*

[^5]: ^?^47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).

[^6]: ^?^*Id.*

[^7]: ^?^H.R. Rep. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).

[^8]: ^?^*Must Carry Order,* 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2977 n.139.

[^9]: ^?^The Longley-Rice model provides a more accurate representation
    of a station's technical coverage area because it takes into account
    such factors as mountains and valleys that are not specifically
    reflected in a traditional Grade B contour analysis. In situations
    involving mountainous terrain or other unusual geographical
    features, Longley-Rice propagation studies can aid in determining
    whether or not a television station actually provides local service
    to a community under factor two of the market modification test.

[^10]: ^?^47 C.F.R. §76.59(b).

[^11]: ^?^47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).

[^12]: ^?^Modification at Exhibit 5.

[^13]: ^?^*Id.* at 4.

[^14]: ^?^Opposition at 13-14.

[^15]: ^?^*Id.* at 14 n.25, citing *KTNC Licensee, LLC,* 18 FCC Rcd
    16269 (2003).

[^16]: ^?^Reply at 4, citing *Time Warner Cable,* 12 FCC Rcd 23249,
    23254 (1997); *KTNC Licensee, LLC,* 18 FCC Rcd 16269, 16278 (2003);
    *TCI of Illinois, Inc.,* 12 FCC Rcd 23231, 23241 (1997); *Dynamic
    Cablevision of Florida, Ltd.,* 11 FCC Rcd 9880, 9889-9890 (1996),
    *aff'd.* 14 FCC Rcd 137783 (1999).

[^17]: ^?^47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).

[^18]: ^?^Modification at Exhibit 4.

[^19]: ^?^*Id.* Comcast states that signal strength tests indicate that
    KUTF does not provide an adequate off-air signal to the communities
    served by the systems. *See* Exhibit 6.

[^20]: ^?^*Id.* at Exhibits 1-3. The closest community, Elk Ridge, Utah,
    is 54 miles distant and the farthest community, Preston, Idaho, is
    181 miles distant.

[^21]: ^?^*Id.* at 5, citing *Greater Worcester Cablevision, Inc.,* 13
    FCC Rcd 22220 (1998) (39-70 miles); *Greater Worcester Cablevision,
    Inc.,* 12 FCC Rcd 17347 (1997) (38-61 miles); *Time Warner Cable,*
    12 FCC Rcd 23249 (1997) (42-58 miles); *Time Warner Cable,* 11 FCC
    Rcd 13149 (1996) (45 miles); *Cablevision of Cleveland, L.P. and V
    Cable, Inc., d/b/a Cablevision of Ohio,* 11 FCC Rcd 18034 (1996) (41
    miles).

[^22]: ^?^*Id.* at Exhibit 7. Comcast notes that KUTF is separated from
    the cable communities by, among other things, a national forest and
    mountainous terrain.

[^23]: ^?^*Id.* at 6.

[^24]: ^?^*Id.* at Exhibits 10 and 11.

[^25]: ^?^Opposition at 2.

[^26]: ^?^*Id.* KUTF states that it broadcasts local Spanish-language
    programming and Telefutura programming. The other Spanish-language
    station, KUTH, Logan, Utah, broadcasts local Spranish-language
    programming and Univision programming and its licensee is Logan 12,
    Inc. The parent company of both KUTF and KUTH is Equity Broadcasting
    Corporation. *See* Declaration of Lori Withrow

[^27]: ^?^*Id.* at 3 and Exhibit II.

[^28]: ^?^*Id.* at 2.

[^29]: ^?^*Id.* at 3-4 and Exhibit II.

[^30]: ^?^*Id.* at 4.

[^31]: ^?^*Id.* at 4-5.

[^32]: ^?^*Id.* at 7 and Exhibit IV.

[^33]: ^?^*Id.* at 7 n.20.

[^34]: ^?^*Id.* at 21 and Exhibits III and X.

[^35]: ^?^*Id.* at 22, citing 14 FCC Rcd 11742 (1999).

[^36]: ^?^*Id.* at 27-28.

[^37]: ^?^*Id.* at 9. KUTF notes that the Salt Lake City DMA encompasses
    the entire state of Utah; Dolores County, Colorado; Bear Lake,
    Franklin and Oneida Counties, Idaho; Elko, Eureka and White Pine
    Counties, Nevada; and Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater and Unita
    Counties, Wyoming.

[^38]: ^?^*Id.* at 9 n.26.

[^39]: ^?^*Id.* at 12.

[^40]: ^?^*Id.* at Exhibit IX. KUTF states that the communities of Elk
    Ridge, Herriman, Mapleton, Pleasant View and Salem, Utah were added
    to this list, based on a fair reading of Comcast's Longley-Rice map.

[^41]: ^?^Reply at 6, citing H.R. Rep. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess.
    97-98 (1992).

[^42]: ^?^*Id.,* citing Modification at Exhibits 1-3.

[^43]: ^?^*Id.* at 6.

[^44]: ^?^*Id.* at 6-7, citing 163 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1998).

[^45]: ^?^*Id.*, citing 163 F.3d at 144-45.

[^46]: ^?^*Id.* at 7.

[^47]: ^?^*Id.*

[^48]: ^?^*Id.*

[^49]: ^?^*Id.*

[^50]: ^?^*Id.* at 8.

[^51]: ^?^*Id.* citing Opposition at 15 n.46, 20, and Exhibit IX.

[^52]: ^?^*Id.* at 8.

[^53]: ^?^*Id.* at 9.

[^54]: ^?^*Id.*

[^55]: ^?^*Id.* citing Modification at Exhibit 6.

[^56]: ^?^*Id.,* citing *Costa de Oro Television, Inc.,* 13 FCC Rcd
    4360, 4375 (1998) (signal strenth test data "taken at cable system
    headends strongly suggests that reception may be difficult for
    individual viewers in the community.").

[^57]: ^?^*Id.* at 10.

[^58]: ^?^*Id.* at 10-11; *see also Price Broadcasting, Inc. v. Comcast
    Cable Communications, Inc.,* 18 FCC Rcd 21398 (2003).

[^59]: ^?^*Id.* at 11-12.

[^60]: ^?^*Id.* at 11, citing *Dynamic Cablevision of Florida, Ltd.,* 12
    FCC Rcd 9952 at paras. 6, 11-12 (1997).

[^61]: ^?^*Id.* at 12, citing *TCI Cablevision of Mexico,* 16 FCC Rcd
    13959, 13967 (2001); *Service Electric Cable TV, Inc.,* DA 04-349
    (CSR-6246-A) at para. 12 (rel. Feb. 13, 2004); *MediaOne of Los
    Angeles, Inc.,* 15 FCC Rcd 19386, 19398 (2000); *Comcast Cablevision
    of Gloucester County, Inc.,* 14 FCC Rcd 12136, 12144 (1999); *Blue
    Ridge Cable Technologies, Inc.,* 14 FCC Rcd 2320, 2327 (1999).

[^62]: ^?^*Id.* at Exhibit 2.

[^63]: ^?^*Id.* at 14, citing Modification at Exhibit 5.

[^64]: ^?^*Id.*

[^65]: ^?^47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).

[^66]: ^?^Modification at 7 and Exhibits 5, 10 and 11. Comcast states
    that these stations also provide Grade A and/or Grade B coverage to
    many of the subject communities.

[^67]: ^?^Opposition at 26.

[^68]: ^?^Reply at Exhibit 4.

[^69]: ^?^47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).

[^70]: ^?^Modification at 8.

[^71]: ^?^Opposition at 30, citing *Paxson San Jose License, Inc.,* 12
    FCC Rcd 17520 (1997).

[^72]: ^?^*Id.*, citing *Time Warner Cable,* 10 FCC Rcd 6663 (1995).

[^73]: ^?^Reply at 5.

[^74]: ^?^47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(c).

[^75]: ^?^47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C)(i).

[^76]: ^?^We note that the Longley-Rice study submitted by KUTF, which
    was based on coverage from KUTF's translator K68FY, was not an
    acceptable submission and could not be relied upon as an indication
    of KUTF's coverage area. While we recognize that translators which
    retransmit stations' signals may encompass particular cable
    communities in instances such as these, translators do not have
    carriage rights under Section 614 and given all the circumstances
    they do not provide evidence that the cable communities are within a
    station's natural market. *See Rifkin/Narragansett South Florida,
    CATV Limited Partnership, d/b/a Gold Coast Cablevision,* 11 FCC Rcd
    21090 (1996).

[^77]: ^?^47 C.F.R. §0.283.