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

In the Matter of:                  )
                                   )
Petition of Time Warner Cable                )         CSR 4917-A
For Modification of Market of Television          )
Station WGOT-TV, Merrimack, New Hampshire    )
                                   )
Petition for Reconsideration                 )


                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  July 27, 1999              Released:  July 29, 1999

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   Paxson Boston License, Inc. ("Paxson"), licensee of WGOT-TV, has filed a petition seeking
reconsideration of Time Warner Cable ("Bureau Order").  The Bureau Order granted a request by Time
Warner Cable ("Time Warner"), filed pursuant to Sections 76.7(a) and 76.59(a) of the Commission's rules,
and excluded sixteen communities in Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Worcester counties of 
Massachusetts ("the Communities") from the television market of station WGOT-TV, Merrimack, New
Hampshire pursuant to the procedures established in Section 614(h) of the Communications Act.  Time
Warner filed  an opposition to the petition, and Paxson filed a reply.

II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   Section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to add
communities to, or delete communities from a television station's market "to better effectuate the purposes
of this section."  A detailed description of these market modification provisions and the Commission's
related regulations are set forth in the Bureau Order.

III. DISCUSSION

     3.   The facts, applicable law, arguments of the parties, and a detailed analysis of those matters
are set forth in the Bureau Order and need not be repeated here.  We find the analysis in the Bureau Order
regarding historic carriage of the station and carriage of other stations in the community, station coverage
and local service to the community, coverage of the communities by other stations, and station audience
share, to be fully supported by substantial evidence of record.  The findings and conclusions of the Bureau
Order are not only solidly based on that analysis, they are fully consistent with our analysis and application
of the market modification provisions of Section 614(h) in New York ADI Appeals Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12262 (1997) ("New York ADI Order"), which were upheld on judicial review in
WLNY-TV, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 163 F. 3d 187 (2d Cir. 1998).  Accordingly, we reaffirm the conclusions
reached in the Bureau Order that the requested market modification will effectuate the purposes of the must
carry statutory provisions and associated Commission rules.

     4.   In addition to its primary arguments which we rejected in the Bureau Order, Christian argues
that the Bureau Order improperly ignored the coverage provided by translator station W54CD that
retransmits the programming of WGOT-TV.  In advancing this argument, Paxson tacitly concedes that
translators, by definition, are not local television stations entitled to must carry but asserts that the
Commission approves translators for use in extending the reach of broadcast signals as an acceptable means
of providing service.  Paxson argues further that the use of the translator is indicative of its commitment to
the Boston ADI and to the provision of local service.  The Commission has held that translator coverage does
not lessen the relevance of the parent station's failure to place technical signal coverage over the subject
communities and that translators are secondary service stations explicitly not entitled to carriage in their own
right, particularly where as here they are not serving their traditional role of filling gaps in the station's
coverage areas but are extending the station's coverage beyond the reach of the parent stations' signal
contour.

     5.   Finally, Paxson states that factors other than those listed in Section 614(h)(1)(C) in the
context of market modification requests should be considered, including the carriage of a station on cable
systems near the communities at issue.  Paxson identifies eight instances of carriage of WGOT-TV on cable
systems located in Middlesex, Norfolk and Suffolk counties ranging from 13.5 miles to 22 miles distant from
Time Warner's system and argues that carriage in such close proximity to the Communities should be
considered illustrative of WGOT-TV's actual market.  Time Warner in response identifies three other
instances where WGOT-TV is not carried on cable systems located even closer (eight to nine miles) to its
cable system.  The record does not show that the cable systems allegedly carrying WGOT-TV are clustered
together adjacent to the Communities at issue here, as they were in Maranatha and in other instances where
station carriage on nearby communities was found to indicate localism.  Indeed, the distances involved here
tend to confirm that the Communities served by Time Warner should not be considered within WGOT-TV's
market.

IV.  ORDER

     6.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106(j) of the Commission's Rules,
47 C.F.R.  1.106(j), that the petition for reconsideration of Time Warner Cable, 12 FCC Rcd 23249 (1997)
filed by Paxson Boston License, Inc. IS DENIED.

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


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                              William H. Johnson
                              Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau