JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS 
AND COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
DISSENTING
In the Matter of Petition of WRNN License Company, LLC, for Modification of Television Market for 
WRNN-DT, Kingston, New York
Localism is our lodestar in cable market modification cases.  Section 614(h)(1)C) of the Act 
requires the Commission to afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account 
factors such as: (1) historical carriage; (2) local service; (3) coverage by other local stations; and (4) local 
viewing patterns.  In case its intent was not clear, the legislative history stressed that the Commission 
should act on market modification cases consistent with Congress objective to ensure that television 
stations be carried in the area in which they serve and which form their economic market.1 This 
reference to a stations economic market is no accident.  The must-carry statute is premised on the idea 
that cable carriage is necessary to ensure that over-the-air broadcasters are able to maintain their local 
advertising base and survive in a world in which so many consumers get their television over cable.  
Thus, while the factors we use to assess market modification cases are flexible, our objective is not.
Historical Carriage. The plain language of the statute asks whether the station historically has 
been carried on systems within the communities in question, not whether it has been carried on systems 
adjacent to and near the communities.  The Media Bureaus finding that WRNN historically has not 
been carried on systems within the communities at issue should have ended the inquiry.2 For similar 
reasons, we reject the majoritys view that Verizons apparent initiation of carriage in certain 
communities sometime during the past fifteen months strengthens the case for historical carriage.  The 
majority reads the word historically out of the statute.   
Having said that, we do not believe that historical carriage is necessarily the only key factor in the 
analysis.  In particular, we recognize that some stations have not had an opportunity to build a record of 
historical carriage for specific reasons that do not necessarily reflect a judgment as to the geography of 
the market involved and that if the historic carriage factor were controlling it would prevent weaker 
stations, that cable systems had previously declined to carry, from ever obtaining carriage rights.3 But 
while we readily agree that the historical carriage factor should not be controlling, we cannot agree that it 
does not mean what it says.  
Local Service. This factor is typically given the most attention in market modification cases, and 
rightfully so  if our objective is to promote localism, the nature and extent of local service are critical.  
Unfortunately, this factor is also the most difficult to define, usually involving a number of considerations 
including signal strength, geographic proximity, natural or man-made barriers, and local programming.
In WRNNs favor is the Bureaus finding that the station puts a Grade B-equivalent signal over 
Nassau County.4 This is an important finding because, as the Bureau noted, the Commission found in the 
NY ADI case that Grade B coverage is an efficient tool to adjust market boundaries because it is a sound 
  
1 H.R. Rep. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).
2 See Bureau Order at 12.  The one Bureau decision cited for the proposition that carriage on systems adjacent to 
and near the communities at issue could be relevant simply found that adjacent or nearby carriage is indicative of 
interest in the programming of the station  i.e., indicates that the station may provide local service under factor 
two  not that nearby carriage resolves the factual issue of whether the station historically has been carried within 
the community itself.  See Petition of Paxson Communications for Modification of WPXD(TV), 13 FCC Rcd 17869, 
17874 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1998).
3 See In Re Petition of Cablevision Systems Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 6453, 6473 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1996).
4 Also in WRNNs favor, as noted above, is the fact that its signal is being carried by cable systems in adjacent and 
nearby  and apparently in the case of Verizon, overlapping  cable communities.
indicator of the economic reach of a particular stations signal.5 But the Bureau, and now the majority, 
fails to cite the immediately preceding language:  that Grade B coverage is a sound indicator of a stations 
economic reach in the absence of other determinative market facts such as where there is a terrain 
obstacle such as a mountain range or a significant body of water.6
This omission is all the more puzzling because the NY ADI case involved the question of whether 
WRNN and other New York market broadcast stations were entitled to carriage on Cablevision and other 
cable systems in the New York metropolitan area.  In that decision, the Commission noted the 
importance of geographic features such as expansive waterways like the Hudson River and the Long 
Island Sound and the interposition of Manhattan in the epicenter of the market with its extremely 
congested infrastructure, that act to remove communities from one another.7 Accordingly, the 
Commission divided the New York market into four sub-zones as part of its market modification 
analyses:  (1) Northern and Central New Jersey; (2) New York City; (3) Long Island; and (4) Upstate 
New York/Fairfield County, CT.8
On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Commissions findings:
With respect to its geographic make-up, not only does the New York ADI [now DMA] span four 
states, but the counties within this area are not contained in one contiguous land mass.  Rather, 
they are separated by several bodies of water, including the Hudson River and Long Island 
Sound.  New York City acts as a natural boundary because its complicated and congested traffic 
patterns make it difficult for residents at one end of the ADI to access communities at the other 
end.  The ADI therefore has an obvious tendency to break itself up into smaller divisions 
reflecting localized regions.  New York City serves as the hub, with its stations programming 
and advertising being of widespread interest across the ADI.  Outlying communities are the 
spokes, with their stations generally showing programming and advertising of interest only to 
viewers in relatively close proximity to that community.9
Those market realities have not changed since 1998.  All that has changed is that WRNN now 
operates from a transmitter site well south of its old transmitter site (hence the improved signal strength 
over Long Island) and moved its main studio from Kingston, its community of license, to New York 
City.10 But that does not transform WRNN from a Kingston spoke station into a New York City hub 
station.  WRNN is licensed to serve the residents of Kingston, not New York City or the New York 
region.  The question from a localism perspective is whether the cable communities are in the same local 
market as the stations community of license.  A stations Grade B contour is often a good proxy for that 
  
5 See Bureau Order at  14, citing NY ADI Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12262, 12271 (1997).
6 See NY ADI Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12271.
7 See id. at 12268.  Indeed, in the underlying Order addressing another station, the Commission stated:  We also 
note that while WHAI-TV provides Grade B service to some of the Long Island communities named in the petition, 
the intervention of Long Island Sound between these communities and the Bridgeport sites of the station appears to 
be a logical boundary to its market area and validates the absence of audience and historic carriage as appropriate 
market defining evidence. See In Re Cablevision, 11 FCC Rcd at 6453, 6478 (1996).
8 See NY ADI Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12268.  The underlying Bureau Order found that WRNN was separated by 
geography and terrain from the Long Island cable systems on which it was seeking access.  See 11 FCC Rcd at 
6480.    
9 See WLNY-TV, WRNN-TV, et al. v. FCC, 163 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 1998).
10 This case is a good example of how the Commissions relaxation of its main studio rules have gone too far.  A 
Kingston resident who wanted to visit WRNNs main studio would have to travel over 100 miles.  See Cablevision 
Opposition to WRNN Petition at 21.
determination.  Here, given the unique geography of the New York market and the distances involved,11
we believe it is not.
Regarding the issue of whether WRNN provides local programming of particular relevance to 
Long Island viewers, the record contains voluminous and conflicting evidence.  For instance, WRNN 
argues that it carries fourteen hours of programming per week of specific interest to the Long Island cable 
communities; Cablevision argues that it actually carries less than an hour.  The Bureau, after reviewing all 
of the evidence, rejected WRNNs arguments, finding that the record does not indicate that much of 
WRNN-DTs programming concerning Long Island focuses on those communities in Nassau County.12  
The Bureau went on to find that this case is consistent with the Second Circuits holding in WLNY that the 
outlying spoke communities in Nassau County and the Hudson Valley are connected by the hub of 
New York City, and that that spoke market programming is generally not of interest to other spoke 
communities.13  
The majority, however, finds that the Bureau erred in its analysis by finding that the record did 
not support a finding of significant programming to the Long Island communities.  As proof, the majority 
simply cites to an exhibit filed by WRNN without any explanation how the Bureau erred or any attempt 
to address the contradictory evidence.  We would have affirmed the Bureau on this point.
Overall, this factor is a close call.  In the end, we believe that the unique characteristics of the 
New York market coupled with the Bureaus finding regarding the lack of locally-focused programming 
outweigh the Grade B presumption of local service.  
Coverage by Other Qualified Stations. We agree that the presence of other local stations should 
not keep an otherwise qualified local station from extending its market.  But we do not see a statutory 
basis for a finding that this factor can only be relevant to enhance a stations claim  i.e., where it can be 
shown that other stations do not serve the communities at issue.  The Commission has held that it could 
also be relevant where a station clearly does not provide local programming and other nearby stations 
do.14 In any event, this is not such a case and we assign little weight to this factor.
Viewership. Like the majority, we recognize that many stations seeking market modifications 
especially new stations or those with specialized formats  will not have significant levels of viewership 
in the communities at issue.  Although there may be cases where viewership is relevant, we generally 
believe it will not be outcome determinative.  Here, we agree that while WRNNs viewership levels are 
low, that factor should not be afforded significant weight.15
In sum, we find that none of the statutory factors supports the addition of the Long Island 
communities to WRNNs local market.  There is a point at which the concept of a local market reaches 
the breaking point and expanding it further will actually damage the localism interests we are trying to 
serve.  For the sake of the people of Kingston, we hope we have not reached that point here. 
  
11 Driving distances between Kingston and the Cable Communities range from 111 miles to 195 miles and average 
151 miles.  Straight-line distances  ignoring the Long Island Sound  range from nearly 79 miles to over 119 miles 
and average nearly 94 miles.  See Cablevision Opposition to WRNN Petition at 12-13.
12 See Bureau Order at 16.
13 Id.
14 See NY ADI Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12266-67; In Re Cablevision, 11 FCC Rcd at 6475, citing Petition of Time 
Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 8625 (1995).
15 See Bureau Order at 18.