Federal Communications Commission 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
In the Matter of Petition of 
Red River Broadcast Corp. 
For Modification of the Television 
Market for Station KDL T 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
CSR-4877-A 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
DA 97-998 
Adopted: May 7, 1997 Released: May 13, 1997 
By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 
INTRODUCTION 
1. Red River Broadcast Corp., licensee of Station KOL T (ABC, Ch. 5), Mitchell, South 
Dakota ("KDLT"), has filed the captioned petition which seeks to include Clay County, South 
Dakota in the "Area of Dominant Influence" of Station KDLT, currently served by Vermillion 
Cable TV ("Vermillion"). Vermillion filed an opposition to the petition and KDLT filed a reply. 
BACKGROUND 
2. Pursuant to §614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the 
Commission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, 1 a commercial television broadcast 
station is entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within th~ station's 
market. A station's market for this purpose is its "Area of Dominant Influence," or ADI, as 
defined by the Arbitron Audience research organization.2 For· purposes of this calculation, both 
1 8 FCC Red 2965-2977 (1993). 
2 Section 4 of the 1992 Cable Act specifies that a commercial broadcasting station's market shall be detennined 
in the manner provided in §73.3555(dX3Xi) of the Commission's Rules, as in effect on May I, 1991. This section 
of the rules, now redesignated §73.4555(eX3Xi), refers to Arbitron's ADI for purposes of the broadcast multiple 
ownership rules. Section 76.55(e) of the Commission's Rules provides that the ADis to be used for the purposes 
of the initial implementation of the mandatory carriage rules are those published in Arbitron' s 1991-1992 Television 
Market Guide. 
6090 
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-998 
over-the-air and cable television viewing are included.3 
3. Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in market 
areas. Section 614(h)(l)(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. 
In considering such requests, the 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) Yihether 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; and 
(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable ancj noncable households 
within the areas served by the cable systems or systems in such 
community. 4 
4. The legislative history of this provision indicates that: 
where the presumption in favor of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers 
losing access to local stations because they are outside the ADI 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 areas which they serve 
3 Certain counties are divided into more than one sampling unit because of the topography involved. Also, in 
certain circumstances, a station may have its home county assigned to an ADI even though it receives less than a 
preponderance of the audience in that county. Refer to Arbitron' s Description of Methodology handbook for a more 
complete description of how counties are allocated. 
"f'0mmunications Act of 1934, as amended, §614(h){l)(C)(ii), 47 U.S.C. §534(h)(l)(C)(ii). 
6091 
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-998 
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. 5 
5. The Commission provided guidance in its report and Order MM Docket 92-
259, supra, to aid decision making in these matters, as follows: 
For example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission 
of documents listing the cable system's lineup (e.g., rate cards) for a period of years. To 
show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the community (factor 
2), parties may demonstrate that the station places at least a Grade B coverage contour 
over the cable community or is located close to the community in terms of mileage. 
Coverage of news or other programming of interest to the community could be 
demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The final 
factor concerns viewing patterns in the cable community in cable and noncable homes. 
Audience data clearly provide appropriate evidence about this factor. In this regard, we 
note that surveys such as tbc;;e used to demonstrate significantly viewed status could be 
useful. However, since this f-:.;;tor requires us to evaluate viewing on a community basis 
for cable and noncable homes, and significantly viewed surveys typically measure viewing 
only in noncable households, such surveys may need to be supplemented with additional 
data con~ming viewing in cable homes. 6 
6. 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. 7 The rules further provide, in accordance with 
the requirements of the 1992 Cable Act, that a station not be deleted from carriage during 
the pendency of an ADI change request. 8 
7. Adding communities to a station's market generally entitles that station to insist on cable 
carriage in those communities. However, this right is subject to several conditions: 1) a cable 
5H.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992). 
68 FCC Red at 2977 (emphasis in original). 
78 FCC Red at 2977 n.139. 
847 C.F.R. §76.59. 
6092 
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-998 
system operator is generally required to devote no more than one-third of the system's activated 
channel capacity to compliance with the mandatory signal carriage obligations,9 2) the station is 
responsible for delivering a good quality signal to the principal headend of the system, 10 and 3) 
the system operator is not required to carry the signal of any station whose signal substantially 
duplicates the signal of any other local signal carried, or the signals of more than one local station 
affiliated with a particular broadcast network. 11 If, pursuant to these requirements, a system 
operator elects to carry only one such duplicating signal, the operator is obliged to carry the 
station from the ADI whose city of license is closest to the principal headend of the cable 
system. 12 Accordingly, depending upon the circumstances involved, the addition of communities 
to a station's market may have the following consequences. It may guarantee than station's 
carriage in the subject communities. Should there be more must-carry stations that one-third of 
the system's channel capacity, it would provide ·the system operator with an expand~d list of 
must-carry signals from which to choose. Should the station be a duplicating network station, it 
will determine which station has priority carri~ge in the subject communities added. 
MARKET FACTS AND PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT 
8. KDL T is licensed to Mitchell, South Dakota, which in turn, is located in the Sioux Falls­
Mitchell, South Dakota ADI. 13 Vermillion provides cable service to Vermillion, South Dakota, 
which is in the Sioux City, Iowa ADI. KDL T requests modification of the Sioux Falls-Mitchell, 
South Dakota ADI to include the community of Vermillion. 
9. KDLT maintains that Vermillion illegally deleted KDLT from its channel lineup on 
October 1, 1996, after fifteen years of continuous carriage. KDL T states that Vermillion dropped 
its station without giving the required 30-day advance written notice to the station, in direct 
violation of §76.58(a) of the Commission's Rules. 14 KDLT asks that the Commission order 
Vermillion to restore carriage of Station KDLT immediately, while its ADI modification petition 
is being considered. Further, KDLT presents evidence that Vermillion should be included in 
Station KDL T's market. when considered under the four factor test set forth in Section 
614(h)(l)(C)(iii) of the Communications Act. KDLT asserts thatStation KDLT was included in 
Vermillion' s channel lineup as early as March 1, 1981, just three months after the cable franchise 
QSee 47 U.S.C. §534(b)(l)(B). 
iosee 47 U.S.C. § 534 (h){l)(B)(iii). 
11 See 47 U.S.C. §534{b)(5). 
128 FCC Red at 2981. 
uSee Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television ADI Market Guide. pp. 1259, 3304. 
;•The Commission's Rules require a cable system to "provide written notice to any broadcast television station 
at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or repositioning that station." See 41 C.F.R. §76.58(a). 
6093 
Federal Communications Commissi6n DA 97-998 
was granted. KDLT states that other cable systems in Clay County have carried the station for 
the past nine years and still do. KDL T argues that this history of carriage is entitled to 
substantial weight and demonstrates that Vermillion' s subscribers value Station KDL T and the 
services that Station KDL T provides. KDL T further contends that the requested market 
modification would facilitate continuation of the status quo which would benefit subscribers. 
Further, KDLT states that loss of cable viewer access to Station KDLT would cause viewer 
disruption; disruption which the statutory JllaI'ket modification provisions .. were designe.d to 
prevent. 
10. In addition to its long term carriage, K.DL T points out the following: l) KDL T carries 
local programming of interest to Vermillion's subscribers; 3) KDLT's has a high level of 
viewership in the community; and 4) Vermillion is currently considered by Nielsen to be in the 
same Designated Market Area (DMA) as Station KDLT. Further, KDL T asserts that its 
viewership in Clay County is demonstrated by the station's 10% total viewing hours and 45% net 
weekly circulation reported for Clay County .15 This data, argues KDL T, demonstrates that Station 
KDL T's programming, including extensive local service appeals, is watched by viewers in Clay 
County communities. Finally, KDLT asserts that Station KDLT's Grade B Contour completely 
encompasses all of Clay County. 
11. Vermillion opposes KDL T's request to reinstate carriage of its signal during the pendency 
of this. proceeding. Vermillion states that KDL T was well aware of its plans to delete the station 
in response to continuous subscriber complaints regarding Station KDL T's picture quality and the 
duplication of broadcast programming between NBC affiliates KDL T and KTIV-TV of Sioux 
City, Iowa.. Vermillion also contends that numerous conversations between Vermillion and 
KDL T senior managers provided notice to KDLT of the on-going signal quality problems and 
Vermillion' s concerns that continued carriage would affect its competitive position. Vermillion 
states that after two years with no improvement in the signal quality and despite continuous 
assurances by KDL T executives that such improvements would be made, Vermillion dropped 
Station KDLT from its channellineup on. October 1; 1996, after giving thirty days' advance 
written notice to its subscribers. While, it admits that formal written notification was not 
provided to KDLT, Vermillion asserts that KDLT was clearly aware of Vermillion's intent to 
drop the signal. Vermillion contends that without KDL T's assurance that its signal would be 
improved, KDL T should not be allowed to benefit from Vermillion' s tolerance. 
12. Vermillion states that KDLT's local programming is questionable, pointing out that bulk 
of KDL T's local programming is news about the University of South Dakota. While the 
University of South Dakota is located in Vermillion, Vermilloin maintains its programming can 
hardly be considered "local" to the City of Vermillion. Finally, Vermillion concedes that while 
KDL T achieves high viewership percentages in Clay County, this does not detract from the 
popularity of the stations currently located in Vermillion's ADI. 
15See Nielsen's 1995 Diary County/Coverage Study, p. 3305. 
6094 
Federal Com~unications Commission DA 97-998 
13. KDLT asserts in its reply that Vermillion admits that it did not provide the mandatory 
advance written notice to KDL T required by Section 76.58(a) before the station from its lineup. 
KDLT further states that Vermillion's has submitted no evidence in support of its claim that 
KDL T's signal quality was unsatisfactory. Had Vermillion complied with its legal obligations, 
KDL T points out that it would have been able to invoke its statutory rights to preserve the status 
quo by filing its ADI modification request earlier.:. KDL T asserts that when it called Vermillion 
after learning of the deletion, Vermillion stated it would now have to begin paying copyright 
royalty fees to carry KDL T, and it simply did not want to incur that expense. KDL T further 
states that it received a letter from Vermillion' s counsel explaining why it was deleting Station 
KDL T. That letter, states KDL T, say~ absolutely nothing about signal quality. Instead, the letter 
explains why the system would have tq begin paying copyright royalty fees. 16 
DISC!JSSION 
14. We shall- grant KDLT's petition for market modification. The evidence the station 
submits, evaluated pursuant to th.e four statutory and other relevant factors; persuades us that 
Vermillion, South Dakota is properly considered part of KDL T's ADI. With regard to the first 
statutory factor, we note that KDL T has demonstrated a history of carriage on the cable system 
serving the community in question. 17 A pattern of carriage, in the absence of a carriage 
obligation, is a strong indication of interest· in a signal and of the signal's market connection to 
the communities in question. 18 Turning to the second statutory factor, we note that KDL T places 
a Grade B contour of all of Clay County. We have stated previously that, as a general matter, 
Grade B coverage demonstrates service to cable communities and serves as a measure of a 
station's natural economic market. 19 Moreover, 'KDL T's has demonstrated that it carries 
programming relevant to Vermillion.. Contrary to Vermillion' s statements, we believe that 
programming about the University of South Dakota, which is located in Verm.illio~ is locally 
oriented programming. Further. it is undisputed that KDL T's signal is receivable off-the-air in 
Vermillion. With regard to the third statutory facfor -- whether other stations eligible to be 
carried serve the communities -- in general, we do not believe that Congress intended this third 
criterion to operate as a bar to a station's ADI claim whenever other stations could also be shown 
to serve the communities at issue. Rather, we believe that this criterion was intended to enhance 
10Nothing in the memorandum ofVennillion's counsel that was provided to KDLT provides any explanation as 
to why copyright payments, which are payable on a twice yearly basis, would cause the system to delete the signal 
of KDL T on October I without complying with the thirty day notice requirement. 
17KDL T was apparently carried by Vermillion. for approximately 15 years prior to its deletion. 
18See KTEN Television limited Partnership, I I FCC Red 10355, 10361 (1996). 
19See Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Red at 2977. See also Amendment of Section 76.51 (Or/ando­
Daytona Beach-Melbourne-Cocoa, Florida), 102 FCC 2d at 1070 ("We believe that television stations actually do 
or logically can rely on the area within their Grade B contours for economic support.") 
6095 
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-998 
a station's claim where it could be shown that other stations do not serve the communities at 
.issue. Under such circwnstances, a denial of carriage rights to the claiming station could deprive 
cable viewers of any broadcast signals that might provide programming geared to their 
communities. . In. this case,. although Siot1X; City ADI stations also service Vermillion's 
subscribers, thi~; enhanc~ment ,factor would not appear to be applicable. ·· TUrning to the fourth 
factor, that of.area viewing patterns, the Nielsen data which KDLT submits indicates that the 
station has a significant share of viewing in Clay County which demonstrates a clear and 
substantial nexus between Clay County and KDLT. -In.fact, Nielsen's 1995 County/Coverage 
Study indicates that KDL T's viewership levels exceeds all but two of the reported Sioux City . 
stations. 2° Furthermore, we note that the Commission has held that the fact that a station, such 
as KDLT, is located µi.t}.le same DMA as a subject community would be given consideration in 
ADI modification proceedings.21 
15. Finally, we find that Vermillion has presented no evidence of poor signal quality to 
substantiate its reason for deleting carriage of KDLT from its line-up without official notification. 
Moreover, Vermillion· has failed to present any. evidence that KDLT does not meet all of the 
criteria pursuant to §614 of the Communications Act. We find, therefore, that Station KDLT is 
a qualified station entitled to carriage on Vermillion's cable system serving the community .of 
Vermillion, South Dakota located in Clay County, South Dakota. Moreover we find that 
Vermillion apparently violated §§76.58(a) and.76.964 of the Commission's rules by failing to 
provide KDL T thirty days written notice of its intention to drop the station. In this regard, 
Vermillion will be ordered to disclose the full circwnstances of it apparent violation of 
§§76.58(a) and.76.964 of the Commission's rules within 30 thirty days of the release of this 
order. Additionally, Vermillion will be required to commence carriage of KDLT wichin twenty 
(20) days of the release date of this order. In this regard we will waive the notice provisions of 
of §§76.58(a) and.76.964 of the Commission's rules 
ORDERING CLAUSES 
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to §614(h) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.§534 and §76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §76.59, that 
the petition for special relief (CSR-4877-A) filed on behalf of Red River Broadcast Group IS 
GRANTED, and Vermillion Cable TV IS ORDERED to commence carriage of Station KDLT 
twenty (20) days after the release date of this ORDER. Station KDL T shall notify the relevant 
cable system in writing of its carriage and channel position election (§§ 76.56, 76.57, and 
20KDLT's reported shares are 10% share of total viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 45%. The listed 
Sioux City stations and their respective shares are: KCAU (10% total viewing share/83% net weekly circulation); 
KMEG (5% total viewing share/46% net weekly circulation); KSIN (2% total viewing share/32% net weekly 
circulation); KTIV (15% total viewing share/77% net weekly circulation); and KXNE (only 16% share of net weekly 
circulation reported). 
21 Report and Order and Notice of Further Rulemaking,, 11 FCC Red. 6201 (1996). 
6096 
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-998 
76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules) within ten (10) days of the release date of this ORDER. 
17. IT IS ALSO ORDERED, that Vermillion shall provide a full explanation, within thirty 
(30) days of the release date of this order, of the circumstances surrounding its dropping of 
station KDLT in apparent violation of§§ 76.58(a) and 76.964 of the Commission's rules 
18. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by §0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 
47.C.F.R. §0.321. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
'iVilliam H. Johnson 
Deputy Cliief, Cable Services Bureau 
6097