Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+-------------------------------+
| In the Matter of:                | * | CSR-5096-A                    |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Costa de Oro Television, Inc.    | ) | CSR-5515-M                    |
|                                  | * |                               |
| For Modification of Market of    | * | CSR-5520-M                    |
|                                  |   |                               |
| Station KJLA, Ventura,           | * | CSR-5537-A                    |
| California                       | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
| Petition for Reconsideration     | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Century Cable of Southern        |   |                               |
| California, Century Southwest    | * |                               |
| Cable Television, Inc. and       | * |                               |
| Multivision, Marcus Cable,       | ) |                               |
| MediaOne of Los Angeles, Inc.,   | * |                               |
| American Cablesystems of South   | * |                               |
| Central Los Angeles, Inc. dba    |   |                               |
| MediaOne, King Videocable        | * |                               |
| Company dba MediaOne, and TCI    | * |                               |
| Cablevision of California, dba   | ) |                               |
| TCI of East San Fernando Valley. | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| For Modification of Market of    |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Station KJLA, Ventura,           | * |                               |
| California                       | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Petition for Reconsideration     | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
| Costa de Oro Television, Inc. v. | * |                               |
| Cox Communications, Inc.         | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
| Request for Carriage             | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Costa de Oro Television, Inc. v. |   |                               |
| Time Warner Cable                | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Request for Carriage             | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| CoxCom, Inc.                     | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
| For Modification of Market of    | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Station KJLA, Ventura,           | ) |                               |
| California                       | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
+----------------------------------+---+-------------------------------+

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: July 7, 2000 Released: July 10, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  The Bureau has before it several matters that pertain to the cable
    television carriage rights of broadcast television station KJLA,
    Ventura, California. These matters include petitions for
    reconsideration, mandatory carriage, and modification of the
    station's market. For administrative convenience, the Bureau is
    consolidating the petitions into one proceeding. Costa de Oro
    Television, Inc., licensee of Television Station KJLA (formerly
    KSTV**-**TV), Channel 57, Ventura, California ("Costa") has filed a
    petition for partial reconsideration of the Cable Services Bureau's
    February 25, l998 Order ("*Bureau Order*"),[^1] in which the Bureau
    granted, in part, and denied, in part, Costa's request to add
    certain communities located in Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
    California to television station KSTV-TV's market for purposes of
    mandatory carriage of the station.[^2] Oppositions in this matter
    were filed by Time Warner Entertainment -- Advance/Newhouse
    Partnership ("Timer Warner"), Comcast Cablevision of Seal Beach,
    Santa Anna, Newport Beach, and North Orange, Coxcom, Inc., and a
    consolidated opposition was filed by Century Cable of Southern
    California, Century Southwest Cable Television, Inc. and
    Multivision, Charter Communications Entertainment, L.P., Long Beach
    Acquisition Corp., Jones Growth Partners II L.P., Marcus Cable,
    MediaOne of Los Angeles, American Cablesystems of South Central Los
    Angeles, Inc., MediaOne of Harbor, Inc., MediaOne of Lakewood, Inc.,
    King Videocable Company dba MediaOne, MediaOne of Costa Mesa, Inc.,
    MediaOne of Cypress, Inc., and TCI Cablevision of California.
    Biltmore Broadcasting filed comments in the proceeding. Costa filed
    a reply to the oppositions.

2.  A joint petition for partial reconsideration has been filed by
    Century Cable of Southern California, Century Southwest Cable
    Television, Inc. and Multivision, Marcus Cable, MediaOne of Los
    Angeles, Inc., American Cablesystems of South Central Los Angeles,
    Inc. dba MediaOne, King Videocable Company dba MediaOne, and TCI
    Cablevision of California, dba TCI of East San Fernando Valley (the
    "cable operators").

3.  Costa has also filed the above-captioned complaints for mandatory
    carriage against certain Cox Cable systems serving Cental and South
    Orange County, California, and CoxCom, Inc. dba Cox Communications
    Palos Verdes, and against certain Time Warner systems serving the
    Los Angeles Designated Market Area (DMA) for their failure to carry
    KJLA.

4.  CoxCom, Inc. ("Cox") has filed a petition which seeks to delete
    certain communities served by its Los Angeles County and Orange
    County cable systems from KJLA's market.

# BACKGROUND

5.  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*"),[^3]
    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
    "designated market area," or DMA, as defined by Nielsen Media
    Research.[^4] 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.[^5]

6.  Under the Communications 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.[^6]

In considering such requests, the Communications 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 new 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.[^7]

In this regard, 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.[^8]

7.  From 1993 until the end of 1999, television broadcast stations were
    generally entitled to cable television carriage within their local
    market area which was defined as the station's ADI as defined by the
    Arbitron audience research firm. Because the Arbitron organization
    ceased defining local markets, the Commission's rules were amended
    to provide that carriage rights, commencing on January 1, 2000,
    would be based on DMAs as defined by the Nielsen audience research
    firm. During the time that the Arbitron ADI market areas were in
    use, the Commission has ruled on numerous ADI market modification
    requests filed pursuant to Section 614(h) of the Communications Act.
    As part of the change from ADI to DMA based markets, the Commission
    considered and sought comment on what continuing validity these
    decisions would have after the change to DMA based carriage rights.
    The Commission concluded that such decisions should generally be
    contolling and stated that:

> \[M\]arket modification requests filed prior to the effective date of
> the change from ADI to DMA, including petitions, petitions for
> reconsideration, and applications for review, will be processed under
> Arbitron's ADI market definitions. We do not believe that the
> petitions for reconsideration and applications for review currently
> pending will be affected by the conversion to DMAs because, in most of
> these cases, the market assignment will not change. In cases in which
> the conversion to DMAs will have a direct consequence, we will take
> the future DMA assignment into account, as we have sone since the
> *First Order* was released. We will also leave intact final market
> modification cases that have not been appealed and/or cases that have
> been subject to final Commission review so as to avoid disturbing
> settled expectations. *Modification Final Report and Order*, *supra*,
> at 8384.

8.  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.[^9] The rules further provide, in accordance with the
    requirements of the Communications Act, that a station not be
    deleted from carriage during the pendency of a modification
    request.[^10]

# discussion

## Petition for Partial Reconsideration; Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration (CSR-5096-A) 

9.  The allegations previously raised by the parties and our discussion
    and analysis of the issues raised are fully addressed in the *Bureau
    Order* and need not be reiterated here.[^11] Costa contends that the
    Bureau erred in denying modification of KSTV's market by excluding
    those communities located outside of the station's Grade A contour
    but within its Grade B contour.[^12] Costa did not seek
    reconsideration for those communities located outside of the
    stations's predicted Grade B contour. The *Bureau Order* noted that
    the existing state of the record in the proceeding was "far from
    ideal," and stated that in light of the "poor state of the record in
    \[the\] proceeding," parties in petitions for reconsideration might
    wish to provide the Bureau with more complete and accurate
    information with respect to the technical availability of the
    station's signal. In its petition for reconsideration, Costa
    supplies the Bureau with a list of telephone area codes and
    exchanges of callers responding to the station's live call-in
    programs. Costa concludes that the survey demonstrates that its
    viewers reside in communities encompassed by the station's Grade B
    contour, and thus, that the *Bureau Orde*r erred in denying
    modification outside of the station's Grade A contour.[^13]

10. Opponents to the petition for reconsideration uniformly argue that
    Costa is attempting to use telephone records as a surrogate for
    signal strength surveys, and that the telephone study fails to
    specify the number of viewers or viewing habits of those who may
    have called in. In its reply, Costa argues that its telephone survey
    was undertaken to demonstrate that KJLA's programming was reaching
    viewers throughout the station's predicted Grade B contour, and that
    it is not necessary to quantify viewership in this regard. Cox
    Communications Palos Verdes conducted signal tests in San Pedro, a
    community subject to Costa's petition for reconsideration, and a
    community listed in the telephone records. Cox was unable to detect
    KJLA's signal in that community with a 100-mile range high-gain UHF
    antenna elevated 28 feet above ground level.[^14] Cox concludes from
    its field strength studies that KJLA's signal is not available to
    viewers in the areas it tested, whether or not the station received
    a call from that location.

11. We note that Costa provides no information as to the methodology of
    its telephone study, nor does petitioner provide the Bureau with any
    specific information regarding parties who called the station. We
    are not convinced that the survey demonstrates coverage to the areas
    in question, particularly where specific technical evidence
    rebutting the existence of an acceptable signal has been raised.
    This type of ambiguous and anecdotal response does not satisfy the
    Bureau's invitation to provide more complete and accurate accounting
    of the technical availability of KJLA's signal. Furthermore, Cox has
    provided technical evidence that questions the methodology and
    validity of the survey itself. Accordingly, we find that Costa has
    not provided sufficient evidence upon which to overrule our earlier
    decision. The telephone survey does not provide the Bureau with any
    specific information regarding viewership. Moreover, of the
    approximately two hundred and fifty calls received over a ten-month
    period, nearly one-quarter of the calls are identified as having
    originated in Los Angeles, which may or may not cover cable
    communities which are subject to the petition for reconsideration.
    Even if we were to draw the most favorable conclusion from the
    survey, we could only conclude that the station received less than
    one call per day from communities that comprise one of the most
    populated metropolitan regions in the nation.

12. Costa also contends in its petition for reconsideration that the
    Bureau has erred in denying KJLA modification of its market within
    the station's predicted Grade B contour. Costa cites numerous Bureau
    decisions in support of its argument that the predicted Grade B
    contour has been the standard that the Bureau has relied upon in
    determining a station's market in such modification cases.[^15] The
    opponents in this matter all argue that while predicted Grade B
    contour has been considered by the Bureau in the context of market
    modification cases, it is not, in itself, dispositive. Opponents
    contend that the order is entirely consistent with and supported by
    Commission precedent, and that none of the cases cited by Costa were
    decided solely on the basis of a station's predicted Grade B contour
    coverage, and are all otherwise distinguishable from the instant
    matter. We concur with opponents in that the cases cited by Costa
    were not decided by relying solely on an analysis of the station's
    predicted Grade B contour. The terrain involved in this geographic
    area also makes predicted contours of the type Costa would have us
    rely on particularly unreliable. Costa's arguments regarding
    coverage of the station were addressed in the *Bureau Order*, and
    petitioner has not raised any new arguments regarding this aspect of
    the Bureau's decision. The Commission has explicitly stated that
    petitions for reconsideration of market modification requests filed
    prior to the effective date of the change from ADIs to DMAs will be
    processed under the ADI market definitions, and we have done so
    here.

13. Cable operators with systems within KJLA's Grade A contour filed a
    petition for partial reconsideration of that portion of the *Bureau
    Order* that granted modification of KJLA's market for those
    communities within the station's Grade A contour. These operators
    contend that their signal strength studies demonstrate that the
    station's actual signal coverage does not cover the communities
    granted in the *Bureau Order's* modification of KJLA's market.[^16]
    Accordingly, these operators argue that the Bureau should reverse
    its partial grant for modification since they contend that the
    station's signal is not "technically available" in the cable
    communities subject to this portion of the order. In opposition,
    Costa argues that the station was operating at reduced power at the
    time the signal strength tests were taken, due to a lightning strike
    that damaged the station's facilities, and that this temporary
    situation should not be the basis upon which to analyze the
    station's signal strength and coverage areas.[^17] The *Bureau
    Order* acknowledged that the topography relevant to this matter may
    present reception problems even within the Grade A contour of the
    station, but that a market modification was justified on geographic
    proximity as well as technical service.[^18] In this regard, we do
    not believe that the cable operators have provided information on
    reconsideration to justify reversal of that portion of the order
    which granted modification of the station's market to include those
    named communities within KJLA's Grade A contour.

## Request for Carriage Against Cox (CSR-5515); Petition for Modification of KJLA's Market (CSR-5537-A) 

14. Costa has filed the above-captioned request for carriage against
    certain Cox cable systems serving Central and South Orange County
    and CoxCom, Inc., dba Cox Communications Palos Verdes, both located
    in the Los Angeles DMA. [^19] In response, Cox has filed the
    above-captioned petition for special relief seeking to modify the
    market of KJLA to exclude those Los Angeles County and Orange County
    communities served by Cox's cable systems.[^20] The communities
    subject to Costa's mandatory carriage petition against Cox were also
    the subject of the *Bureau Order* in which the Bureau declined to
    modify KJLA's market under the former ADI market assignment to
    include said communities.[^21] As set forth above, we have denied
    Costa's petition for reconsideration in which Costa sought
    reconsideration of our ruling regarding the Los Angles County
    communities within the station's Grade B contour, but not the Orange
    County communities outside of the contour. In its petition for
    mandatory carriage against Cox, Costa contends that its previous
    assignment by Arbitron to the Santa Barbara ADI market has been
    corrected as of January 1, 2000, and that it is now correctly
    assigned to the Los Angeles DMA. Costa argues that the must-carry
    status of the station must be determined by its current DMA
    designation, and that the *Bureau Order*, which ruled that KJLA had
    mandatory carriage rights only in those communities within its Grade
    A contour, does not govern the station's current status, as that
    order is not a final determination because of Costa's pending
    petition for reconsideration.[^22] In support of this contention,
    Costa argues that the *Modification Final Report and Order,
    supra,*at 8384, states that "the only instance where the DMA
    assignment of a station would not govern was in instances where
    there had been a **final** market modification (emphasis in
    original)." Accordingly, Costa now seeks mandatory carriage rights
    in those communities that have previously been excluded from its
    market. Cox argues that the Bureau rightfully excluded those
    communities, and that our prior determination with respect to the
    communities served by Cox is binding, regardless of the change to
    DMA markets, pursuant to the Commission's holding in its
    *Modification Final Report and Order*.

15. Costa's argument that the *Bureau Order* in question is not "final"
    is not relevant here in light of the Commission's clear statement as
    to how reconsideration petitions of pending cases would be
    addressed. The *Modification Final Report and* *Order*, which Costa
    relies upon, states that market modification requests filed prior to
    the effective date of the change from ADI to DMA will be processed
    under Arbitron's ADI market definitions.[^23] It is clear that Costa
    filed its initial request for market modification under the ADI
    market definitions, which declined to modify KJLA's market to
    include the communities subject to Costa's must-carry complaint
    against Cox. In addition, Costa chose not to seek reconsideration as
    to the Orange County communities served by Cox. For these reasons,
    Costa cannot now seek mandatory carriage rights for communities that
    have been ruled as outside of KJLA's market. Accordingly, we deny
    Costa's petition for mandatory carriage against Cox, and will
    dismiss Cox's petition for modification of its market as moot.

## Request for Carriage Against Time Warner (CSR-5520-M)

16. Costa has also filed a petition for mandatory carriage against
    certain Time Warner cable systems located in Los Angeles County and
    Orange County, both located within the Los Angeles DMA, KJLA's
    market designation since January 1, 2000.[^24] Time Warner has filed
    an opposition[^25] to which Costa has replied.

17. Generally speaking, the process of adding or subtracting communities
    from a market pursuant to Section 614(h) is done on a community
    specific basis. There are instances where a system operator is
    identified with a central named community that is intended to
    represent and encompass all of the immediately surrounding
    communities served by that system. As we have indicated previously,
    the communities and operations that were intended to be covered by
    the previous requests in this proceeding were particularly poorly
    defined.[^26] Accordingly, we ruled only on those communities that
    could be specifically identified.

18. Costa states that following the release of the *Bureau Order,* it
    filed a complaint against the Time Warner Los Angeles County "South
    Bay system," which it believed to be subject to the carriage
    requirements set forth in the *Bureau Order*. Costa argues that
    although the Bureau denied that complaint,[^27] the Bureau found
    that "for that portion of the South Bay system serving the
    communities of El Segundo, Hawthorne, Lawndale and Gardena, KJLA
    will attain must carry rights on January 1, 2000, when the
    changeover from ADIs to DMAs takes place, since the carriage rights
    for these communities was not considered in the Costa de Oro
    \[*Bureau Order*\] decision."[^28] Costa argues that Time Warner did
    not appeal that decision, and that the Bureau's declaration as to
    those communities is final. In its opposition, Time Warner contends
    that that Costa identified only the community of Torrance in its
    original petition for modification (CSR-5096-A), and that Time
    Warner informed the Bureau in that proceeding of the names of the
    additional communities comprising the "South Bay system." We have
    looked to the record in that proceeding and cannot reference any
    "South Bay system" communities other than Torrance. In our decision
    in *Costa v. Time Warner, supra*, we recognized that the Bureau did
    not rule on communities not specifically identified in the *Bureau
    Order*, and so stated that certain communities would be in KJLA's
    market as of the January 1, 2000 conversion to DMA markets. Costa's
    original petition for modification requested that the Bureau add the
    community of Torrance to KJLA's market, which the Bureau denied.
    However, Time Warner did not identify any of the other communities
    comprising the "South Bay system" in that proceeding, and so the
    Bureau did not rule on what were subsequently identified as the
    other "South Bay" communities.

19. In its opposition to Costa's must-carry complaint, Time Warner
    identifies the communities it serves in Orange County, but does not
    aver that it so identified said communities in Costa's modification
    proceeding. The record in the *Bureau Order* does not disclose any
    reference to any communities served by Time Warner in Orange County
    other than the City of Orange,[^29] and "certain unincorporated
    areas of Orange County."[^30] Accordingly, the remaining communities
    subject to Costa's request for carriage on Time Warner's cable
    system serving Orange County communities has not been subject to any
    Commission order for modification of KJLA's market.

20. In *its Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection
    and Competition Act of 1992,*[^31] the Commission states that
    "Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the 1992 Act permits the Commission to add
    communities to or subtract communities from a station's television
    market to better reflect marketplace conditions following a written
    request."[^32] We have recognized that each request for modification
    of a station's market was intended to be specific to that particular
    request and the inclusion or exclusion of anything other than
    specifically-named individual communities was not contemplated.[^33]
    According to the record, KJLA has requested carriage in the Los
    Angeles County communities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne,
    Lawndale, Torrance, and North Torrance, and the Orange County
    communities of Orange, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Los Alamitos,
    Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Midway City,
    Rossmoor, Stanton, Westminster and Cypress, and that Time Warner has
    declined to commence carriage.[^34] In regard to the communities of
    Torrence, Orange, and unicorporated areas of Orange County which
    were subject to the *Bureau Order*, Time Warner is under no
    obligation to honor Costa's request for carriage for reasons set
    forth in our disposition of Costa's request for carriage on Cox's
    systems. As to the remaining communities served by Time Warner, we
    find that KJLA and the communities are co-located within the same
    DMA, and that the station has properly requested carriage on channel
    57 of Time Warner's cable systems.[^35]

# ORDERING CLAUSES

21. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 614(h) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 534(h), and
    Section 76.59 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.59, that the
    petition for partial reconsideration (CSR-5096-A), filed by Costa De
    Oro Television, Inc., **IS DENIED.**

22. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,** pursuant to Section 614(h) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 534(h), and
    Section 76.59 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.59, that the
    petition for partial reconsideration (CSR-5096-A), filed by Century
    Cable of Southern California, Century Southwest Cable Television,
    Inc., Marcus Cable, MediaOne of Los Angeles, Inc., American
    Cablesystems of South Central Los Angeles, Inc. dba MediaOne, King
    Vedeocable Company dba MediaOne, and TCI Cablevision of California,
    dba TCI of East San Fernando Valley, **IS DENIED**.

23. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 614(h) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 614(h), that the
    petition for market modification (CSR-5537-A), filed by CoxCom, Inc.
    **IS DISMISSED**.

24. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 614 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 614, that the
    complaint for mandatory carriage filed by Costa de Oro Television,
    Inc., (CSR-5515-M), against Cox Communications, Inc. **IS DENIED**.

25. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 614 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 614, that the
    complaint for mandatory carriage filed by Costa de Oro Television,
    Inc. (CSR-5520-M) against Time Warner Cable, **IS GRANTED**, to the
    extent indicated above. Time Warner Cable **IS ORDERED** to commence
    carriage of television station KJLA on channel 57 of its cable
    systems serving the communities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne,
    Lawndale, North Torrance, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Los Alamitos,
    Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Midway City,
    Rossmoor, Stanton, Westminster and Cypress, California within
    sixty (60) days from the date of this *Order*.[^36]

26. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section
    0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson

Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: *Costa de Oro Television, Inc.* 13 FCC Rcd 4360 (1998).

[^2]: CSR-5096-A.

[^3]: 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2976-2977 (1993).

[^4]: 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, commerical publications which delineate television
    markets based on viewing patterns. *See* 47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C).
    Until January 1, 2000, Section 76.55(e) of the Commission's rules
    provided that Arbitron's "Areas of Dominant Influence," or ADIs,
    published in the *1991-1992 Television Market Guide,"* be used to
    implement the mandatory carriage rules. Effective January 1, 2000,
    however, Section 76.55(e) now requires that a commercial broadcast
    television station's market be defined by Nielsen Media Research's
    DMAs. For the must-carry/retransmision consent elections that took
    place on October 1, 1999, commercial television stations were
    required to make their elections based on DMAs. *See 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"*).

[^5]: For a more complete description of how counties are allocated,
    *see* Nielsen Media Research's *Nielsen Station Index: Methodology
    Techniques and Data Interpretation.*

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. §534(h)(1)(C)(i).

[^7]: *Id*. §534(h)(1)(C)(ii).

[^8]: H.R. Rep. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess 97 (1992).

[^9]: 8 FCC Rcd 15 2977 n. 139.

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. §76.59.

[^11]: The Bureau granted Costa's request to modify the market of
    KSTV-TV to include the communities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas,
    Canyon Country, East San Fernando Valley, Glendale, Hermosa Beach,
    Hidden Hills, Los Angeles (Eaglerock, Hollywood-Wilshire, Santa
    Monica, Sherman Oaks, South-central, West Hollywood, Western),
    Malibu, Redondo Beach, San Fernando, Santa Clarita, Sunland, and
    West San Fernando Valley (Canoga Park, Tarzana and Woodland Hills).
    These communities are within the predicted Grade A contour of the
    station. The Bureau denied Costa's request to modify the market of
    the station for all other communities that are located outside of
    the predicted Grade A contour of the station.

[^12]: Costa identifies these omitted systems, as follows: The
    Buenavision system serving East Los Angeles; the Charter
    Communications system serving La Canada, Altadena, Pasadena, Temple
    City, Alhambra, Monterey Park, and Montebello; the Time Warner
    system serving South Pasadena; the Liberty Communications system
    serving Southgate; the MediaOne system serving Compton, Downey,
    Carson, Norwalk, La Mirada, and Lakewood; the Cablevision Industries
    system serving Long Beach; the Cox system serving Palos Verdes and
    San Pedro; the Marcus system serving Whittier; and the TCI systems
    serving West Whittier, Industry, Baldwin Park, El Monte and
    Monrovia. Petition for Reconsideration at 2.

[^13]: Costa requests that the Bureau "\[set\] aside the hypertechnical
    engineering issues of how many dBs are delivered to a given cable
    headend" in determining the issues presented in its petition.
    Petition for Reconsideration at 13.

[^14]: Cox Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration at 9. Cox also
    conducted field strength surveys in the Orange County locations from
    which KJLA received phone calls with the same results, i.e., that
    the station's signal is undetectable in these locations as well.
    *Id*.

[^15]: Costa Petition for Reconsideration at 4-6, citing *Venture
    Technologies Group, Inc*., DA 98-102 (Cable Services Bureau, rel.
    January 23, l998), *Jones Intercable*, 12 FCC Rcd 13779 (1997),
    *Marks Cablevision*, 12 FCC Rcd 22989 (1997), *Comcast* *Cablevision
    of Inland Valley, Inc*., 12 FCC Rcd 6461 (1997).

[^16]: Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration at 3.

[^17]: Costa Opposition to Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration at
    5.

[^18]: *Costa de Oro Television, Inc.,*13 FCC Rcd at 4375.

[^19]: The commmunities listed in Costa's petition for mandatory
    carriage against Cox ("*Must-carry Petition v. Cox*") are as
    follows: Los Angeles County communities -- Rolling Hills Estates,
    San Pedro Navel, San Pedro, Ft. MacArthur, Ranco Palos Verdes, Palos
    Verdes Peninsula, and Palos Verdes Estates. Orange County
    communities -- South Laguna, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Dana
    Point, Capistrano Beach, Silverado Canyon, Modjeska Canyon, Lake
    Forest, Emeral Bay, Laguna Hills, Rancho Santa Marg., Portola Hills,
    Orange, Foothill Ranch, Aegean Hills, Aliso Viejo, Corona Del Mar,
    Coto De Caza, Coto De Caza Canyon, Dove Canyon, El Moro Beach, El
    Toro, El Toro MCB, Emerald Beach, Harbor Estates, Irvine, Mission
    Viejo, Newport Beach, Rancho Cielo, San Clemente, San Juan
    Capistrano, San Onofre, Silverado, Trabuco Canyon, and Tustin. Cox
    has filed an oppositon in this matter, to which Costa has replied.

[^20]: The communities served by Cox' Los Angeles County system are as
    follows: Los Angeles (San Pedro), L.A. County (unincorporated), Fort
    MacArthur AFB, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling
    Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills. The communities served by Cox'
    Orange County System are as follows: Aliso Viejo, Camp Pendleton,
    Coto De Caza, Dana Point, Dove Canyon, El Moro Beach, Marine Air
    Station (El Toro), Emerald Bay, Foothill Ranch, Foothill/Sonterra,
    Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest,
    Mission Viejo, Modjeska Canyon, Newport Beach, Orange, Ranch Cielo,
    Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Silverado
    Canyon, Trabuco Canyon, Tustin/Tustin Heights, and Marine Air
    Station (Tustin). Costa has filed an opposition in this matter, to
    which Cox replied.

[^21]: In its original petition for special relief in CSR-5096-A
    ("*Petition for Special Relief*"), Costa incorrectly identified
    communities served by Cox. In its opposition, Cox correctly
    identified the communities it served, for both Los Angeles and
    Orange Counties. Cox *Opposition to Petition for Special Relief* at
    2. All of the Los Angeles County and Orange County communities
    identified by Costa in the instant petition for mandatory carriage
    were identified by Cox in the former proceeding, and thus part of
    the record on which the *Bureau Order* was based.

[^22]: Must-carry Petition v. Cox at 3.

[^23]: *See Modification Final Report and Order*, *supra*, at 8384.

[^24]: Costa identifies the communities subject to its petition as
    follows: Los Angeles County -- El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne,
    Lawndale, Torrance; Orange County - Orange. Costa also identifies
    additional communities as served by Time Warner "according to the
    following headends:" Gardena -- Gardena, El Segundo, Hawthorne,
    Lawndale, Torrance, Los Angeles County (portions), North Torrance;
    Orange -- Orange, Santa Ana; Garden Grove -- Garden Grove, Los
    Alamitos, Anaheim; and Huntington Beach -- Huntington Beach, Costa
    Mesa, Fountain Valley, Midway City, Rossmoor, Stanton, Westminster
    and Cypress.

[^25]: Time Warner identifies the systems subject to the instant
    petition as follows: Los Angeles County communities -- Gardena,
    Torrance, El Segundo, Hawthorne, Lawndale and North Torrance (the
    "South Bay" system); Orange County communities -- City of Orange,
    unincorporated Orange County, Garden Grove, Anaheim, Los Alamitos,
    Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Midway City,
    Rossmoor, Stanton, Westminster and Cypress (The "Orange County"
    system).

[^26]: *See* *Costa de Oro Television, Inc*., *supra*, at footnote 1,
    where the Bureau stated, *inter alia,"*We cannot make a
    determination when it is unclear which community Costa de Oro seeks
    to add \[and\] which cable operator would be affected thereby...We
    note that several Oppostions raise the issue of misidentified
    communities and made an apparent effort to determine which
    communities Costa de Oro seeks to include."

[^27]: *See Complaint of Costa De Oro Television v. Time Warner Cable*,
    14 FC Rcd 12127 (1999) ("*Costa v. Time Warner*").

[^28]: *Id*. at footnote 28.

[^29]: CUID No. CA0940.

[^30]: CUID No. CA0814. Time Warner Opposition to Petition for Special
    Relief (CSR-5096-A) at 1.

[^31]: 8 FCC Rcd 2965 (1993).

[^32]: *Id*. at 2976.

[^33]: *See Costa v.Time Warner,*14 FCC Rcd at 12131.

[^34]: Costa Request for Carriage at 3.

[^35]: Costa Request for Carriage at Attachment 2.

[^36]: Costa has identified the community of Santa Ana in its request
    for carriage against Time Warner, although Time Warner does not
    identify Santa Ana as a community that it serves. To the extent that
    the record in this matter has been problematic, we have included
    Santa Ana in the ordering clause if appropriate.