********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

In re:                               )
                                     )
Paxson Communications Corporation    )
                                     )           CSR-5230-M
vs.                                  )
                                     )
CFW Cable of Virginia, Inc.          )
                                     )
Request for Mandatory Carriage       )
of Television Station WPXR,          )
Roanoke, Virginia                    )


                      MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  July 2, 1998                          Released:  July 7, 1998  

By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau:

                               INTRODUCTION

1.      Paxson Communications Corporation ("Paxson"), licensee of television broadcast station WPXR,
Roanoke, Virginia ("WPXR" or "the Station"),  has filed a must-carry complaint with the Commission,
pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.61 of the Commission's rules, claiming that CFW Cable of Virginia,
Inc. ("CFW") has failed to commence carriage of WPXR on CFW's system serving Covington, Virginia
and the surrounding areas (the "cable communities") as required by Section 614 of the Communications
Act and Section 76.56 of the Commission's rules.  No opposition to the complaint was filed.

                                BACKGROUND

2.      Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the
Commission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, 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 "area of dominant influence," or ADI, as defined by the Arbitron
audience research Organization.  An ADI is a geographic market designation that defines each television
market exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns.

                           SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

3.      WPXR asserts that it is entitled to mandatory carriage on CFW's Covington, Virginia cable system
because WPXR is a qualified local commercial station as defined under the Commission's must-carry
rules.  WPXR explains that it is licensed to Roanoke, Virginia, which is in the Roanoke-Lynchburg ADI. 
WPXR states that CFW operates a cable television system serving Covington and the surrounding areas,
which also are within the Roanoke-Lynchburg ADI.  WPXR contends that because it is located within the
same ADI as CFW, it is entitled to carriage.  WPXR asserts that it requested mandatory carriage on
CFW's Covington system in a letter dated December 4, 1997.  According to WPXR, it is delivering an
adequate signal of at least -45 dBm to CFW's headend.  WPXR points out that it is committed to acquire
and install the necessary equipment, if needed, to deliver a good quality signal to CFW's Covington
headend.  WPXR claims that CFW did not respond to the December 4, 1997 letter in violation of Section
76.61(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, which requires cable operators to respond in writing to requests
for carriage within 30 days of receipt of such requests.  

                                DISCUSSION

4.      We will grant WPXR's complaint.  We find that representations made by the Station demonstrate
that WPXR is a local full power commercial television station qualified for carriage on CFW's system
serving Covington, Virginia, and the surrounding areas.  Both WPXR and CFW are located in the same
ADI of Roanoke-Lynchburg.  Under the Commission's must-carry rules, cable operators have the burden
of showing that a commercial station located in the same television market as a cable operator is not
entitled to carriage.  CFW did not file an opposition to WPXR's must-carry complaint nor did it respond
within 30 days to Paxson's letter requesting carriage of WPXR as required by the Commission's rules. 
CFW, therefore, has not presented any evidence that WPXR is not entitled to carriage on its system. 
Furthermore, WPXR claims that it delivers a good quality signal to CFW's Covington headend, and has
made a commitment to acquire and install all the necessary equipment needed to provide CFW with such
a signal.  We conclude that WPXR is entitled to carriage on CFW's system serving Covington, Virginia
and the surrounding areas.

                             ORDERING CLAUSES

5.      Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (47 U.S.C.  534), that the complaint filed by Paxson Communications Corporation IS
GRANTED.   CFW Cable of Virginia, Inc. IS ORDERED to commence carriage of television station
WPXR on its cable system serving Covington, Clifton Forge, Iron Gate, and the unincorporated areas of
Alleghany County, Virginia within sixty (60) days from the date that WPXR informs CFW Cable of
Virginia, Inc. of WPXR's choice of channel position.

6.      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that WPXR shall notify CFW in writing of its carriage and
channel position elections ( 76.57 of the Commission's rules) within thirty (30) days of the release of
this Order.

7.      This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under  0.321 of the Commission's rules.

        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



        Gary M. Laden, Chief
        Consumer Protection and Competition Division
        Cable Services Bureau