$//MO&O Denying W49AW carriage on CVI's Palatka, FL cable system, DA 94-1575//$ $/300.534 Carriage of low power television station signals/$ $/76.61 Disputes concerning carriage/$ Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 DA-94-1575 In re: ) ) Complaint of Pentecostal ) CSR- 4307-M Revival Association, Inc. ) against Cablevision ) Industries of Middle Florida, Inc. ) ) Request for Carriage ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 20, 1994; Released: January 4, 1995 By the Cable Services Bureau: 1. On August 19, 1994, Pentecostal Revival Association, Inc. ("PRA" or "station"), licensee of low power television station W49AW (Channel 41), Palatka, Florida, filed a complaint against Cablevision Industries of Middle Florida, Inc. ("CVI"), an operator of a cable system serving Palatka, Florida. PRA requests that the Commission require CVI to commence carriage of W49AW. CVI filed an opposition to this complaint on October 6, 1994, to which PRA replied on October 17, 1994. CVI then filed a response to the PRA's reply on November 4, 1994 and PRA filed a rebuttal to that response on November 18, 1994. 2. In support of its petition, PRA argues that W49AW meets all the qualifications under the Commission's LPTV signal carriage rules. PRA states that W49AW: 1) is the only television station in Putnam County; 2) delivers a good quality signal to the cable headend which is only two miles away from the station's 360' transmitting tower; 3) is located in a county which is not part of the top 160 metropolitan statistical areas; 4) is located in Palatka Florida, a community with a population less than 11,000; and 5) fulfills its broadcast licensee obligations vis-a-vis minimum hours of operation, children's programming, equal employment opportunity and locally-originated programming. 3. In its opposition, CVI states that the Commission should deny W49AW's must carry request on substantive and procedural grounds. First, CVI argues that PRA's complaint should be dismissed because it was filed after the applicable 60 day statute of limitations had expired. The cable operator maintains that PRA's complaint was filed on August 16, 1994, more than one year after its Palatka cable system general manager informed the station by letter that its carriage request could not be honored. CVI then asserts that the record submitted by PRA is devoid of any evidence that W49AW satisfies any of the mandatory LPTV criteria for carriage; specifically, CVI contends that the station does not demonstrate that it addresses local news and informational needs not being adequately served by full power television stations. Finally, CVI argues that the petition should be dismissed because PRA did not include a certificate of service along with its filing nor did it serve a copy of the complaint on the requisite franchising authority. 4. PRA emphasizes in its reply that it did not request carriage in the summer of 1993 and that CVI has misinterpreted a letter the station sent on June 21, 1993, as a signal carriage request rather than a letter asking about availability and rates for leased access channels on the cable system. PRA argues that CVI's July 13, 1993, response to its initial letter recognizes that the station was concerned about leased access channel rates and not mandatory carriage. The station also asserts that it recently asked the Commission for advice concerning the metropolitan statistical area criterion -- only after it found out that Palatka and Putnam County were not within the top 160 MSAs did it move forward and file its must carry complaint in August of 1994. Finally, PRA rebuts CVI's contention that it does not serve the local news and informational needs of the Putnam County Community by providing detailed data on the kind of programming it airs on a weekly basis. 5. In its response, CVI faults the station's analysis of its June 21, 1993 letter stating that W49AW, in its reply, ignored key language that exposes the communication as a request for carriage. CVI then focuses on the wording of PRA's June 21, 1994, correspondence which includes the phrase "I am asking once more for your cooperation in providing a cable channel for assignment to W49AW." CVI infers that the station, in this letter, has admitted to asking for carriage before, notably in June of 1993. CVI then reargues the point that the station has not made a sufficient showing that it is qualified for carriage. 6. In its rebuttal to CVI's response, PRA explains that it first requested carriage in December 1991 when it first went on-the-air and that the phrase "once again" is in reference to this request. The station then argues that since its original request was made before the 1992 Cable Act was implemented, it has no bearing on the present complaint. PRA then reiterates that its June 21, 1993, letter to CVI must be considered a leased access request and not a signal carriage request because, at the time, it did not know whether it qualified for carriage under our rules. The station then reasserts that it is a qualified low power television station and criticizes CVI for failing to explain which factor the station does not or can not meet. 7. We are persuaded by the arguments raised by CVI in its filings. We find the language of PRA's June 21, 1993 letter to CVI to be a request for carriage. The phrase ". . . make possible a channel on your cable system so that we may reach the many in your community who do not have the pleasure of antennas . . ." can be reasonably interpreted as an informal signal carriage request. This interpretation is reinforced by the wording found in PRA's June 21, 1994 communication to CVI which states ". . . I am asking once more for your cooperation in providing a cable channel for assignment to W49AW." We agree with CVI that this phrase "presupposes a prior request", one that took place more than a year before the complaint was filed. We believe that a television station, like W49AW, need not employ the phrase "must carry" in every instance to communicate its desire for carriage to a cable operator. 8. Our rules setting forth must carry complaint procedures are quite clear. "No must carry complaint filed pursuant to 76.61 will be accepted by the Commission if filed more than sixty (60) days after the . . . denial by a cable television system operator of a request for carriage . . . ." W49AW's complaint was filed on August 19, 1994, more than 13 months after CVI formally denied the station's carriage request on July 13, 1993. Moreover, we also find merit in CVI's argument that the station did not adhere to our rules because it did not provide a certificate of service along with its petition and it neglected to serve a copy of the complaint on the local franchising authority. Again our rules are straightforward in this matter. "The petition for special relief or must-carry complaint may be submitted informally, by letter, but shall be accompanied by a certificate of service on any cable television system operator, franchising authority, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or any other interested person who may be directly affected if the relief requested is granted." Because of these errors in law, W49AW's complaint must be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the petition (CSR-4307-M) filed August 19, 1993, by Pentecostal Revival Association, Inc. IS DISMISSED as incomplete and untimely filed. 10. These actions are taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Service Bureau