WPC9 2BJZ Courier3|a 2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\d&FX@26KF Z3|a "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2'<K' Kr"K$Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,&' x implementation of the mandatory carriage rules are those published in Arbitron's 19911992 Television Market Guide.  xo The Commission recently concluded that it was appropriate to switch market definitions from ADIs to Nielsen Media  {O'' x Research's designated market areas ("DMAs") for mustcarry/retransmission consent elections. See Definition of  x Markets for Purposes of the Cable Television Mandatory Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, Report and"(, * *("  {O' x@ Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CS Docket No. 95178, 11 FCC Rcd 6201 (1996) ("Market  {OZ' x Modification Report and Order"). In its Market Modification Report and Order, the Commission decided to use  {O$' xD Arbitron's 19911992 Television ADI Market Guide market designations for the 1996 election and postpone the  x switch to Nielsen's DMAs until the mustcarry/retransmission consent election that is to take place on October 1,  {O' x  1999. The Commission also issued a Further Notice in its Market Modification Report and Order to solicit  x additional information and provide parties an opportunity to further consider issues relating to the transition to market designations based on Nielsen's DMAs. An ADI is a geographic market designation that defines each television"<, * *,,"  xmarket exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns. Essentially, each county in the United  x States is allocated to a market based on which homemarket stations receive a preponderance of total  xviewing hours in the County. For purposes of this calculation, both overtheair and cable television  Sg'viewing are included."gЄ yO ' x* ԍCertain counties are divided into more than one sampling unit because of the topography involved. Also, in  x certain circumstances, a station may have its home county assigned to an ADI even though it receives less than a  {O ' x| 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.  S' e =3.` ` Under the Act, however, the Commission is also directed to consider changes in market areas. Section 614(h)(1)(C) provides that the Commission may:  Xwith 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:  Xthe Commission shall afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as   #X(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;   X(II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community;   X(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 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   X(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.   S'4.` ` The legislative history of this provision indicates that:  JXwhere 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  qoperates, the FCC may make an adjustment to include or exclude particular communities" ,l(l(,,}"  from a television station's market consistent with Congress' objective to ensure that  television stations be carried in the areas which they serve and which form their economic market.  * * * * *  'X[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  Sh'community is part of a particular station's market.^hЄ yO'ԍH.R. Rep. No. 102628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1992).^   S' e 5.` ` The Commission provided guidance in its Must Carry Order, supra, to aid decision making in these matters, as follows:   XFor example, the historical carriage of the station could be illustrated by the submission  S7 ' 0of documents listing the cable system's channel lineup (e.g., rate cards) for a period of  Syears. To show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable  Jcommunity (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  Jbe demonstrated by program logs or other descriptions of local program offerings. The  S' 9final 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 those used to demonstrate significantly viewed status  could be useful. However, since this factor 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  S'with additional data concerning viewing in cable homes.QXЄ yO'ԍ8 FCC Rcd at 2977 (emphasis in original).Q   So' e 6.` ` In adopting rules to implement this provision, the Commission indicated that requested  xchanges should be considered on a communitybycommunity basis rather than on a countybycounty  xbasis, and that they should be treated as specific to particular stations rather than applicable in common  S' xto all stations in the market."Є yO^' x ԍ8 FCC Rcd at 2977 n.139. Viewership information cited herein is county data, rather than communityspecific  xM data. However, absent evidence that such data is not fairly reflective of viewing in the actual communities in  {O' xx question, we accept such data as probative in cases of this type. See, e.g., RKZ Television, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 8008, 8010 (1993). The rules further provide, in accordance with the requirements of the Act,  S'that a station not be deleted from carriage during the pendency of an ADI change request.<Є yO#'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.59.<   S=' III. THE PLEADINGS  S' e 7. ` ` WCSHTV is located within the PortlandPoland Spring, Maine ADI. The counties of Strafford and Rockingham, New Hampshire are located within the Boston, Massachusetts ADI."b ,l(l(,,Q"Ԍ S' e ԙ8.` ` In support of its request, WCSHTV states that it satisfies the relevant modification criteria  xset forth in the Communications Act. First, WCSHTV states that it has established a history of carriage  xin the requested communities. It indicates that it has been carried in all of the requested communities for  xanywhere from 8 to 10 years. Second, WCSHTV indicates that all of the instant communities are located  S4' xZwithin its Grade B contour.> 4Є yO'ԍPetition at Exhibit 2.> WCSHTV points out that the Bureau has repeatedly found that broadcast  xstations with Grade B or better overtheair signal coverage provide local service to communities for  S' xpurposes of mandatory carriage.% XЄ {O' x ԍSee, e.g., Bradenton Broadcast Television Co., Ltd., 11 FCC Rcd 21044 (1996); DP Media License of Battle  {O 'Creek, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 7122, 7127 (1998); Paxson San Jose License, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 17520 (1997).% WCSHTV states that the Bureau has also recognized geographic  S' xproximity as another means for establishing coverage or other local service to the cable communities. Є {O ' x ԍImplementation of the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage  {O 'Issues, 8 FCC Rcd 2976, 2977 (1993).  xIn this instance, WCSHTV points out that its city of license is located only 45 miles from the cable system's principal headend in Dover, New Hampshire.  S' e 9.` ` Third, WCSHTV states that it provides valuable local programming which is specifically  xtargeted to the communities. For instance, WCSHTV indicates that from April 21 through October 20,  x/1998, its News Center presented over 184 stories focusing on events in neighboring areas of New  xHampshire, including at least 49 stories specifically relating to or involving the instant cable  S ' xcommunities.>  Є yO'ԍPetition at Exhibit 3.> WCSHTV argues that, to the extent that other stations do provide local coverage to the  xcommunities, the Bureau has made clear that such coverage "does not act as a bar to a station's ADI  S 'claim." ^ Є {O' x ԍSee Panhandle Telecasting Co., 12 FCC Rcd 884, 888 (1997); Bradenton Broadcast Television Co., Ltd., 11  {O' x FCC Rcd 21044, 21049 (1996); Channel 56 of Orlando, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 4071, 4081 (1996); and Wabash Valley  {Oq'Broadcasting Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 19773, 19778 (1996).  S7' e = 10. ` ` Finally, WCSHTV states that it has substantial viewership in the system's service area.  xIt points out that recent viewing surveys reflect that during the course of an average week, 45% of the  xtotal TV households and 22% of the noncable households in Strafford and Rockingham Counties watch  S' x7WCSHTV.6 Є yO'ԍPetition at 9.6 Moreover, when compared to the 11 Boston ADI stations' viewership in Strafford County,  xWCSHTV states that it ranks fourth in Sunday through Saturday 7:00 a.m.1:00 p.m. average quarterhour  S8' xcume for total households.>8V Є yO."'ԍPetition at Exhibit 4.> Of the Portland ADI stations, WCSHTV indicates that it has the largest  S'viewership in Rockingham and Strafford Counties.  S' e Ԋ 11. ` ` In its opposition, MediaOne argues that WCSHTV's request should be denied because  xthe station has failed to demonstrate that it adequately meets the criteria necessary for market modification.  xAlthough WCSHTV is carried in the cable communities, MediaOne argues that such voluntary carriage"9,l(l(,,"  xcannot overcome WCSHTV's failure to meet the remaining market modification factors nor does it justify jeopardizing the must carry rights of the Boston ADI NBC affiliate, WHDHTV.  Sg' e  12. ` ` MediaOne states that WCSHTV also fares poorly in its reliance on its Grade B coverage.  x3MediaOne asserts that while the Commission has previously relied on a station's Grade B contour as a  xlast resort to prevent the contraction of a station's market, it does not typically rely solely on the Grade  xB to expand a market. In addition, MediaOne states that the station's geographic distance of more than  x56 miles from the cable communities equals or exceeds those found to justify exclusion of cable  Sh'communities from a station's market for must carry purposes.H\h {O' x  ԍSee, e.g,, AR Services, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 21080 (1996) 48 miles; Time Warner Cable, 11 FCC Rcd 13149  {O ' x (1996)45 miles; and Cablevision of Cleveland and V Cable, d/b/a Cablevision of Ohio, 11 FCC Rcd 18034 (1996) 41 miles.H    S' e m 13.` ` MediaOne points out that WCSHTV also does not provide evidence of programming  xspecifically tailored to the instant communities. MediaOne states that WCSHTV is a NBC network  xaffiliate and thus broadcasts NBC programming which has no specific nexus or relevance to the  xcommunities herein. In any event, even if such programming did target the communities, MediaOne states  xpthat it is already available from the Boston ADI's own NBC affiliate, WHDHTV. While WCSHTV  S ' xasserts that it provides "locallyoriented" programming,6  yO'ԍPetition at 7.6 MediaOne argues that many of the news stories  xand program information listed in WCSHTV's petition appear to focus on issues of potential general  xappeal to New Hampshire and Maine residents and do not address news or events specific to any of the  Sj'instant communities.>j| yO'ԍPetition at Exhibit 3.>  S' e  14. ` ` MediaOne states further that WCSHTV fails to provide any evidence to support its claim  xthat the instant communities are inadequately provided local coverage by their own market stations. For  xinstance, MediaOne points out that WCSHTV completely ignores the fact that the cable communities all  xreceive WMURTV, a Grade A station licensed to Manchester, New Hampshire, and WNDS, licensed to  xDerry, New Hampshire. MediaOne states that WMURTV provides extensive news and sports coverage  xfrom the cable communities as well as extensive public affairs and local entertainment programming and  xthat WNDS reached an agreement on a formal "news alliance" with the Boston ADI CBS affiliate, WBZTV, to air a nightly local newscast at 10:00 p.m.  S9' e 15. ` ` With regard to the fourth factor, MediaOne maintains that although WCSHTV argues that  x"[of] the Portland ADI stations, WCSH has by far the greatest viewership in Rockingham and Strafford  S' xcounties,"6  yO!'ԍPetition at 9.6 the relevant question is not how WCSHTV fares with respect to other Portland stations, but  x how its viewership compares with the inmarket NBC affiliate, WHDHTV. In a study conducted by  xMedia Strategies, MediaOne states that the ratings found for WCSHTV in both Strafford and Rockingham  S:' x7Counties were easily eclipsed by that of WHDHTV in all or virtually all dayparts.`X: yOv%' x ԍOpposition at 6. The study indicated for Rockingham County that "WHDHTV clearly outperforms WCSHTV  x in every daypart. WHDHTV's audience delivery is 10 to 20 times that of WCSHTV." For Strafford County, it stated that "WHDHTV outperforms WCSHTV in virtually every daypart."` Moreover, MediaOne": ,l(l(,,"  xindicates that WHDHTV is considered to be significantly viewed in both Rockingham and Strafford  S' xCounties. MediaOne points out that in its recent action in Guy Gannett Communications, Inc.,O yO5'ԍCSR5289A (released December 4, 1998).O the  xBureau noted that a similar comparison of viewership levels of Portland station WGMETV and Boston  x*station WBZTV show "a preference for WBZTV, in the subject communities, especially in Rockingham  S5'County."B5X {O-'ԍId. at paragraph 23.B  S' e 16. ` ` Finally, MediaOne points out that due to the fact that Portland, WCSHTV's city of  xlicense, is slightly closer to the cable system's principal headend than is Boston, carriage of WHDHTV  xcould be at risk should WCSHTV's request be granted since Commission rules require a cable operator  S6' xto carry only the closest of two identical network affiliates.G6 yO 'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76..56(b)(4)(ii).G MediaOne argues that such displacement of an inmarket station is not what Congress had in mind when it enacted the modification rules.  S ' e 17. ` ` In its opposition, WMURTV states that WCSHTV makes an insufficient showing under  xthe four modification criteria to justify grant of its request. WMURTV states that in instances where  xaffiliates of the same network in adjacent ADIs have both been historically carried, the factor relating to  S ' xhistoric carriage is not significant to the ultimate decision as to modification as Section 76.56(b)(4)(ii)F z yO'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.56(b)(4)(ii).F  xof the rules requires a cable system to carry only the local network affiliate closest to its principal  S ' xheadend.  {OH'ԍSee Group W Television, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2737, 2741 (1995) (cable carriage factor of "marginal assistance"). WMURTV argues, therefore, that the fact that WCSHTV, or indeed any of the other Portland ADI stations, may have been historically carried in the communities does not support its requested relief.  S' e 18. ` ` Further, WMURTV points out that WCSHTV's showing under the second factor is not  xcpersuasive as WHDHTV and WCSHTV place approximately the same predicted strength over the  S' xcommunities herein while WMURTV places an even stronger signal.E yO'ԍSee Opposition at Appendix A.E WMURTV indicates that its  x+Grade A contour covers all of the communities, while WHDHTV's predicted Grade B contour  xencompasses all but 4 of the 26 communities. WMURTV states that although WCSHTV's predicted  x3Grade B contour does encompass all of the communities, its ratings, as described below, suggest that  xviewers in the communities turn to WHDHTV and WMURTV for local news programming and  xinformation. WMURTV also indicates that the communities herein are, on average, 49.7 miles from Boston, WHDHTV's city of license, and 54.5 miles from Portland, WCSHTV's city of license.  S' e 19. ` ` While WCSHTV does attempt to demonstrate that it covers local news stories of interest  xin the New Hampshire communities, WMURTV argues that such showing falls far short of the  S' xprogramming that WMURTV itself provides.A,  yOm%'ԍOpposition at Appendix C.A WMURTV points out that it has a unique tie and  xresponsibility to the state of New Hampshire and its citizens. It states that it is the only commercial VHF  xstation licensed to New Hampshire, the only affiliate of a major network and the first station to bring"; ,l(l(,,"  xdigital television to the state. It maintains that it is aggressively committed to its coverage of New  xHampshire news and has a news staff of 63 fulltime people. Because its signal, in combination with  xtranslator stations, broadcasts overtheair to the entire state, WMURTV states that it provides 71 hours  Sg'of news per week with a third of each half hour dedicated to New Hampshire news. g yO' x" ԍWMURTV states that its main studio is in Manchester, New Hampshire with a local news bureau in  x Portsmouth. It states that its news assets are never farther than 25 miles from the New Hampshire communities and  x provide WMURTV with immediate and ongoing access to key news events in the communities. By contrast, WCSHTV's studio location in Auburn, Maine is anywhere from 65 to 106 miles from the communities.   S' e 20. ` ` WMURTV argues that WCSHTV's viewership claims6 yOQ 'ԍPetition at 9.6 deflect the true state of WCSH xQTV's ratings in Strafford and Rockingham Counties. For instance, WMURTV states that a review of the  S' xNielsen ratings provided by WCSHTV>@ yO{ 'ԍPetition at Exhibit 4.> indicate that where WCSHTV garners a mere 1 share each of  x cable and noncable households, WHDHTV garners a 14 share of cable households and a 15 share of  xnoncable households, while WMURTV garners a 9 and 11 share, respectively. WMURTV states that  xkthe dayparts dedicated to local news rather than entertainment programming reflect even lower ratings for  S'WCSHTV.9 yO?'ԍOpposition at 11.9  Si ' e 21. ` ` Finally, WMURTV argues that grant of WCSHTV's petition would alter the basic  S6 ' xstructure of the Boston ADI, something that Congress did not envision. Z6 `  {O6' x ԍSee, Channel 33, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 2579, 3582 (1996) which declined to allow WBFS, a Miami station, to  x extend its Miami ADI into West Palm Beach and other nearby communities that constituted a "core community" of the West Palm Beach ADI because of the disruptive effect that modification could have on the marketplace. WMURTV states that the  xDBureau has also refused to "unduly upset the economic marketplace expectations underlying the affiliation  S ' xconcept."!  {O' x ԍGuy Gannett Communications, Inc., DA 982464 (released December 4, 1998) at paragraph 22 (citing Mohawk  {O'Valley Broadcasting, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 12090 (1996)). WMURTV states that the same concerns apply here as grant of WCSHTV's petition would  x jeopardize WHDHTV's right to cable carriage in its own ADI, all to the benefit of an adjacent market NBC affiliate.   S' e S22.` ` In its reply to MediaOne, WCSHTV argues that MediaOne fails to provide sufficient  xgrounds for denying the instant request. WCSHTV states that MediaOne overlooks the system's  xgeographic location relative to the actual local service areas of the two television markets, but instead  xunproductively compares WCSHTV to WHDHTV. WCSHTV points out that MediaOne does not  xchallenge WCSHTV's longterm historic carriage, ignores the Commission's consistent reliance upon  xpGrade B coverage to demonstrate service to cable communities, and does not directly challenge the  xkWCSHTV's viewership evidence. Moreover, contrary to MediaOne's implications, WCSHTV states that  xCommission rules do not require cable systems to delete multiple local affiliates of a common network.  xITherefore, WCSHTV maintains, WHDHTV's future carriage would not be in jeopardy should the requested modification be granted. "!,l(l(,,"Ԍ S' e =23. ` ` In reply to WMURTV's opposition, WCSHTV states that WMURTV does not dispute  x7that WCSHTV addresses each of the modification criteria, but instead attempts to compare its service to  x&that of WCSHTV and also to advance arguments on behalf of WHDHTV, a station that did not even  xparticipate in this proceeding. WCSHTV argues that WHDHTV's failure to participate in this  x7proceeding suggests that a grant of the request would be unlikely to impact the market adversely and that  xZthe status quo would be maintained. WCSHTV argues that it is not involved in a comparative hearing  xwith respect to WMURTV and WHDHTV and that it fully satisfied all of the criteria for modification.  x<Moreover, WCSHTV states that the suggestion that the Bureau should follow its recently released  Sh' xdecision in Guy Gannett is misplaced as the facts in that case are dissimilar to those presented herein and  xthe Commission must consider the merits of WCSHTV's petition separately. In any event, WCSHTV  S'points out, the Guy Gannett case is not final as there is a pending reconsideration.   S ' IV. DISCUSSION  S8 ' e 924. ` ` The counties of Strafford and Rockingham, in which the communities requested for  xZinclusion are located, are situated in the northeastern portion of the Boston ADI and are geographically  x3proximate to the Portland ADI, to which WCSHTV is licensed. In our review of the case herein, the  xfactors presented by WCSHTV argue for grant of its request. WCSHTV has a long history of carriage  xin the communities at issue (factor I); provides Grade B coverage and specificallydirected programming  xQto the communities (factor II); and has reasonable viewership in both counties (factor IV). Other factors  xinherent in this situation, however, support a denial of the requested modification and are ultimately more persuasive  Sm' e 25.` ` WCSHTV, an NBC network affiliate, is seeking to modify its market to include 26  xcommunities located in the Boston ADI. These communities are served by the Boston market NBC  xaffiliate, WHDHTV. In such circumstances, we are especially concerned that our decision not unduly  S' xupset the economic marketplace expectations underlying the affiliation concept.h" {O<'ԍMohawk Valley Broadcasting, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 12090 (1996).h Therefore, we must take  xinto account the effect that a grant of must carry status to WCSHTV will have on WHDHTV and the structure of the Boston market.  S' e 26. ` ` Our review of the case reveals several important factors. Both WCSHTV and WHDHTV  xgprovide approximately equal Grade B coverage of the communities at issue. Geographically, however,  x<there is some disparity. According to the most recently available Commission records, the subject  xcommunities are served by three separate physical systems operated by MediaOne one system located  xtotally in Strafford County, one located totally within Rockingham County, and the other serving  S ' xcommunities in both counties.5# Z yO 'ԍFCC Form 325.5 An analysis of the distances between the two stations' cities of license  xand the individual communities in the three systems reveals that all of the Strafford County communities  xare closer to Portland than to Boston, while at least onequarter of the Rockingham communities are either  xcloser to Portland or equidistant between Portland and Boston. A grant of must carry status to WCSH xTV therefore, particularly for the Strafford County system, but in part for all three separate physical  xsystems, would jeopardize WHDHTV's must carry status within its own ADI market, which is a situation  S 'not intended or envisioned by the Communications Act.$  yOa&' x3 ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.56(b)(5) which requires a cable operator obligated to carry duplicating network affiliate stations, to carry the station whose community of license is closest to the principal headend of the cable system. " B$,l(l(,,w!"Ԍ S' e ԙ27. ` ` Viewership levels are also important in reaching our determination. WHDHTV, the  xcurrent NBC affiliate serving the communities, achieves substantial viewership levels of 15/70 and 20/80  xin Strafford and Rockingham Counties, respectively, and is also considered to be significantly viewed in  xthe two counties. On the other hand, WCSHTV achieves viewership levels of 10/57 in Strafford County,  xZand 1/11 in Rockingham County, and is considered to be significantly viewed in Strafford County as a  xwhole and, individually, in each of the Rockingham County communities. A comparison of these  xviewership levels shows a more marked preference for WHDHTV in the subject communities. Further,  xwhile WCSHTV has shown that it provides locallyfocused programming to the communities, it has not  xprovided any information to show that WHDHTV, or indeed any other Boston ADI station eligible to be carried, fails to provide adequate news coverage or other local programming.   S' e 28. ` ` Finally, we cannot overlook the importance of the local programming the communities  xreceive from their own market stations. We note MediaOne's carriage of two other Portland market  xstations, WGMETV and WMTWTV, which are apparently being carried voluntarily, as is WCSHTV.  x7As such, our action herein does not place WCSHTV at an unfair disadvantage to the stations with which it competes.  S ' e 29. ` ` In light of WHDHTV's current viewership in all of the communities, and the potential  xdanger to WHDHTV's must carry status in more than a third of requested communities, we see no reason  S7' xto interfere with the present affiliate relationship of the relevant ADIs or change the status quo of the  x3stations involved, despite the otherwise strong showing provided by WCSHTV. WCSHTV has long  xbeen carried in the subject communities pursuant to retransmission consent agreements and there has been no indication by MediaOne that it intends to alter this arrangement.   S9' V. ORDERING CLAUSES  S' e 30. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934,  xas amended (47 U.S.C. 534(h) and 76.59 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59), that the petition  Sm'for special relief (CSR5326A), filed on behalf of Pacific and Southern Company, IS DENIED.  S' e 31. ` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's  S'Rules.<% yO<'ԍ47 C.F.R. 0.321.< ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqWilliam H. Johnson, Deputy Chief ` ` hhCqCable Services Bureau  S '