NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** $//MO&O granting WMBC-TV carriage on Cablevision, DA 95-____//$ $/76.61 Disputes concerning carriage/$ $/300.534 Carriage of local commercial television signals/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington D.C. 20554 DA 95-2420 In re: ) ) Complaint Against Cablevision Systems ) CSR-4553-M Corporation ) (Cablevision of New Jersey, Inc.)) (Cablevision of Newark) ) (Cablevision of Riverview) ) ) Request for Carriage ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 4, 1995 Released: February 21, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. On July 7, 1995, Mountain Broadcasting Corporation ["WMBC-TV"], licensee of Station WMBC-TV (Ind., Channel 63), Newton, NJ, filed the above captioned signal carriage complaint against Cablevision Systems Corporation and its cable systems in Northern New Jersey. Cablevision filed an opposition to this complaint to which WMBC-TV filed a reply. ARGUMENTS 2. In its signal carriage complaint concerning Cablevision's systems in Northern New Jersey, WMBC-TV states that the need for carriage is "urgent." WMBC-TV explains that it has been deprived of carriage without justification and is prevented from providing its programming to the very homes to which Congress determined it should have access. WMBC-TV states that it has complied with all prerequisites for mandatory carriage of its signal on Cablevision's cable systems pursuant to 76.55(c) of the Commission's Rules. 3. WMBC-TV offers the following chronology in support of its must carry complaint. On April 20, 1993, WMBC-TV elected must carry status on the four systems subject to the complaint. Cablevision then notified WMBC-TV on April 30, 1993, that it would not be carried because it failed to deliver a signal of adequate strength to the systems and it was also distant for copyright purposes with respect to Bayonne, Bergen, and two communities served by the Riverview system. However, WMBC-TV notes that the copyright issue is now moot in light of changes made to 111(f) of the Copyright Act which determined that a station's ADI is local for copyright as well as must carry purposes. Since the resolution of the copyright issues, WMBC-TV asserts that it has worked diligently to try to resolve Cablevision's allegations of inadequate signal quality by attempting to provide appropriate equipment for the operator to use to measure its signal and trying to arrange delivery of its signal by Bell Atlantic fiber optic cable. 4. WMBC-TV explains that on October 24, 1994, it sent a letter to Cablevision of Riverview explaining that the station has increased its effective radiated power which should have removed any concerns regarding the adequacy of its signal. WMBC-TV then states that Cablevision of Riverview responded a month later on November 18, 1994, explaining that "due to technical and legal issues" it was in the process of relocating its system's headend from North Bergen to Union City, New Jersey. Cablevision said the system was "currently testing" WMBC-TV's signal at the new site and would contact the station "in the future" regarding the test results and the station's entitlement to carriage. On November 22, 1994, the station responded to this news by offering to provide its signal via fiber optic lines to the new headend site, but in the interim, requested immediate carriage at the old headend site as it did not believe its signal was deficient at that location. Over a month later, on December 29, 1994, Cablevision of Riverview acknowledged receipt of WMBC-TV's letter but claimed that the station had provided inadequate technical information to permit evaluation of the fiber optic proposal. According to the station, the operator did not address WMBC-TV's request for immediate carriage at the old headend. Instead, the operator stated that it tested WMBC- TV's signal at the new site and found that the signal was of inadequate strength with a reading between -74.6 dBm and -76.6 dBm. WMBC-TV explains that it wrote a letter to the operator on January 25, 1995, noting that it learned the principal headend would be moved to the new Union City location with a few weeks. WMBC-TV asserts that this change would be the system's third headend location in less than two years and represented a change from a location where WMBC-TV delivered a good signal to one where there was an antenna on the roof of a one story building---a set-up that would make receipt of any signal more difficult. WMBC-TV states that on February 17, 1995, it received a letter from Cablevision noting that the system has received similar requests for carriage from other stations and that Cablevision would respond to the station's request shortly. On February 24, 1995, Cablevision sent a letter to WMBC-TV asking for additional technical information about fiber optic delivery and said it was presently considering the proposal. WMBC-TV states that, within less than a week, a representative of the fiber optic supplier sent the requested information to Cablevision of Riverview. In addition, WMBC-TV provided another copy of the technical information that it had already included in its earlier letter of January 25, 1995 and also referenced successful experiences it had in delivering its signal via fiber optic cable to other New Jersey cable systems. WMBC-TV then states that Cablevision did not allow the fiber optic supplier to have access to the operator's property to perform the necessary technical survey until Cablevision's attorneys reviewed the matter. 5. WMBC-TV notes that this incident spurred it to write an additional letter on March 10, 1995, requesting carriage and briefly summarizing the run-around it had received. After 45 days of not receiving a response, the station's attorney wrote to Cablevision's counsel on April 25, 1995, concerning the problems WMBC-TV was having in testing its signal and obtaining carriage on the Riverview system as well as the other Northeastern New Jersey systems at issue in this complaint. WMBC-TV explains that in this letter the station reiterated that it would like its off-the-air signal to be tested at the systems' headends at the station's expense, and that if the signal were found to be inadequate the station would be willing to deliver its signal via fiber-optics. WMBC-TV states that on May 23, 1995, Cablevision's counsel responded to the station's April 25, 1995 letter claiming that the operator remained willing to retest WMBC-TV's signal with the equipment the station has provided and that it would have its engineers circulate the equipment for testing at each system headend. The operator also said that it was will to "invoice" WMBC-TV for the costs provided that reimbursement follow immediately. WMBC-TV notes that in a later telephone conversation, the operator also requested certificates of insurance and indemnification agreements to cover any mishaps that might occur during off-air testing. WMBC-TV responded on June 12, 1995, with a proposed agreement and certificate of insurance from the local communications company that would be involved in any installation. By letter of June 20, 1995, Cablevision wrote WMBC-TV and said it needed three separate agreements and certificates in the name of each of the New Jersey subsidiaries subject to this complaint; on June 22, 1995, the insurance company issued certificates in the names Cablevision requested. On July 7, 1995, WMBC-TV filed the instant complaint. 6. WMBC-TV asserts that this complaint is timely filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 76.7(c)(4)(iii) because it is being filed within 60 days of the Cablevision letters of May 23, 1995 and June 20, 1995. The station claims both these letters "clearly appear to be pretexts designed to stall, delay, and ultimately refuse carriage of WMBC-TV. WMBC-TV now requests that the Commission "put and end to Cablevision's excuses and delaying tactics by issuing an order" directing the operator to immediately carry the station's signal conditioned on WMBC-TV's delivery of an adequate quality signal either on an off-the-air basis or by use of fiber-optic cable or other technical means. 7. Cablevision argues that WMBC-TV's complaint seeks blanket carriage on four independent systems without properly articulating facts relevant to each of them. According to the operator, the complaint focuses almost exclusively on alleged facts concerning the Riverview system. As for that system, Cablevision explains that it was acquired on August 8, 1994, thus any dealings that WMBC-TV may have had with its predecessor, Riverview Cablevision Associates, are not appropriate for consideration in this instance. Cablevision states that WMBC-TV renewed its request for carriage by letter dated October 24, 1994, and confirms the point that it was moving it headend to a new location in January 1995 due to legal and technical issues. The operator notes that the change of location was due, in part, to its inability to assume a lease for the site that had been held by its predecessor. Cablevision scoffs at WMBC-TV's suggestion that it would bear the "significant expense and technical difficulty" involved in moving an entire off-air receive site simply to enhance the possibility that a particular station might not be able to deliver a good quality over-the-air signal. With regard to its letter of February 17, 1995 to WMBC-TV, Cablevision explains that it chose not to provide a substantive response to the station's request for the initial date of carriage because the operator was having difficulty securing zoning approval for its new off-air receive site, information that was not public at the time. As for WMBC-TV's proposal to deliver its signal via fiber optics, Cablevision asserts that WMBC-TV apparently arranged to have equipment installed on or before March 13, 1995, without its knowledge or permission and without providing Cablevision with more details of how its facilities would have to be modified or whether installation would disrupt present operations. Cablevision adds that, through statements made by its in-house counsel in mid-March 1995, it did not believe that the use of fiber optic cable to deliver a good quality signal was contemplated by the 1992 Cable Act and that WMBC-TV's demand for immediate carriage via fiber optics was denied. In these same letters, Cablevision also noted its willingness to re-test WMBC-TV's signal using equipment supplied by the station but the station did not respond to such offers until April 25, 1995. 8. Cablevision asserts that WMBC-TV's carriage complaint regarding the Riverview system is untimely. The operator asserts that WMBC-TV's letter of October 24 constituted a carriage demand under 76.61(a) of the Commission's Rules; Cablevision's letters of December 29, 1994 and January 9, 1995 denying WMBC-TV's over-the-air demands triggered the station's obligation within 60 days to file a must carry complaint. Cablevision further states that, assuming arguendo WMBC-TV's letter of October 24, 1994 did not constitute notice contemplated by 76.61(a), such notification was plainly provided in the station's follow-up letter of January 9 challenging the system's December 29 denial of carriage. Cablevision then asserts that its letter of February 17, 1995 providing a unsatisfactory response again triggered WMBC-TV's obligation to file a must carry complaint within 60 days; thus, at the latest, WMBC-TV's complaint as it relates to the Riverview system's denial of carriage for WMBC-TV's over-the-air signal, should have been filed no later than April 18, 1995. As for the station's fiber optic demands, Cablevision states that WMBC-TV's January 25, February 22, and March 2 letters constituted carriage demands; thus, the 60 day deadline for filing a must carry complaint began to run on March 7, 1995, when WMBC-TV received notice that the Riverview system had affirmatively denied the station's representatives access to install fiber optic cable. For the sake of argument, Cablevision suggests even if WMBC-TV's February 22 and March 2 carriage demands did not constitute notice, the station subsequently notified Cablevision on March 10 that it was "refusing to carry WMBC-TV's signal" on the system and reiterated its demand that Cablevision immediately commence carriage of its signal. Cablevision responded to this demand on March 31st, when Cablevision denied WMBC-TV's request for fiber optic carriage; thus, WMBC-TV's complaint as it relates to the delivery of fiber optic cable to the Riverview system should have been filed, at the very latest, on or before May 30, 1995. 9. With regard to the Newark system, Cablevision explains that WMBC-TV renewed its request for carriage by letter dated October 24, 1994, six months after Cablevision declined to carry the station because of poor signal quality issues. According to Cablevision, that same letter included an earlier letter of April 15, 1994, which demanded the operator test WMBC-TV's signal using station-supplied equipment or it would be in violation of WMBC- TV's statutory carriage rights. In response, the Newark system notified WMBC-TV by letter dated November 23, 1994, that it had surveyed the station's signal and found that the station was not currently entitled to carriage because it failed to meet the FCC standards for delivering a good quality signal. Cablevision stresses that the memorandum attached to that letter made plain that it had conducted its measurements using the antenna supplied by WMBC-TV. Cablevision sent WMBC-TV a letter dated January 6, 1995 which again confirmed that the station did not qualify for mandatory carriage and explained its reasons for believing that it was in compliance with the signal testing and mandatory carriage requirements. Like the Riverview system, Cablevision states that it informed the station that it does not believe that the delivery of the station's signal via telephone lines was contemplated by the 1992 Cable Act, and that Cablevision would not provide WMBC-TV access to install fiber optic cable for the delivery of its signal. 10. Cablevision asserts that WMBC-TV's letter of October 24, 1994 demanding carriage of its over-the-air signal constituted a carriage demand under 76.61(a); thus, the Newark system's letter of November 23rd responding to this request and affirmatively denying the station's carriage demand triggered WMBC-TV's obligation, within 60 days, to file a must carry complaint which would have been due on or before January 22, 1995. Cablevision adds, even assuming arguendo that WMBC-TV's letter of October 24 did not constitute notice, such notification was clearly provided by the station's letter of December 2, which challenged the system's signal measurements and reiterated Cablevision's obligation to carry the station. Accordingly, Cablevision believes its letter of January 6 affirmatively declining WMBC-TV's request triggered the station's obligation to file a must carry complaint on or before March 7, 1995. Moreover, Cablevision argues that even if the station's complaint were measured from the operator's subsequent affirmative denial on January 11, the 60 day filing deadline expired on March 12. As for the station's fiber optic demands, Cablevision states that WMBC-TV first requested mandatory carriage by letter dated December 2, 1994. According to the operator, the station's subsequent letter dated March 9 notifying the Newark system that it had denied the station's representative access to install fiber optic equipment and demanding immediate carriage unquestionably constituted a demand for carriage. Cablevision did not respond to this notification, rather the operator informed the station on March 31 that Cablevision would not permit access to the systems for fiber optic delivery; thus, at the very latest, WMBC-TV's complaint as it relates to fiber optic delivery to Newark should have been filed on or before May 30, 1995, within 60 days of the affirmative denial of carriage. 11. As for the Bergen system, Cablevision states that WMBC-TV reasserted its demand for mandatory carriage on that system in a letter dated October 25, 1994, more than a year after the operator denied the station's carriage request for failure to deliver a good quality signal. Cablevision then states that it affirmatively denied WMBC-TV's request by letter dated November 29, 1994, explaining that recent signal measurements had determined that the station again failed to deliver the requisite good quality signal. According to Cablevision, WMBC-TV challenged the operator's signal tests and asserted that the station's signal would be adequate if tested using a Sitco antenna supplied by the station; WMBC-TV also proposed to deliver its signal via "telephone line" until "the differences of the test will be resolved." Cablevision replied by letter dated December 29, 1994, reiterating its earlier position that the station did not qualify for mandatory carriage on the Bergen system; however, the letter did not respond to WMBC-TV's fiber optic demand. WMBC-TV replied to Cablevision's letter on January 10, 1995, insisting that the operator re-test the station's signal using a new antenna it would supply. The following month, by letter dated March 8, 1995, the Bergen system requested additional information concerning WMBC-TV's fiber optic proposal. The next day, WMBC-TV notified the Bergen system of its alleged failure to comply with the FCC's signal testing requirements and requested that Cablevision immediately notify WMBC-TV of the system's principal headend so that a WMBC-TV representative could install fiber optic facilities. Cablevision states that WMBC-TV also enclosed more information about the fiber optic proposal in this same correspondence. Cablevision explains that it did not respond to this letter, but that instead WMBC-TV was advised that it would not be permitted access to its system to deliver the station's signal via fiber optic cable, thereby affirmatively denying the station's fiber optic demand. 12. Cablevision asserts that WMBC-TV's letter of October 25, 1994 demanding mandatory carriage on the Bergen system provided the required notification to the operator; thus, the Bergen system's letter dated November 29, 1994 affirmatively denying WMBC-TV's carriage request triggered the station's obligation within 60 days, on or before January 28, 1995, to file its must carry complaint. Assuming arguendo, Cablevision maintains that even if WMBC-TV's October 25, 1994 carriage demand did not constitute notice, such notification was provided in either the station's letter received by Cablevision on December 5, 1995, which challenged the operator's signal quality measurements, the station's letter of January 10th, which warned that an operator may not refuse to accept a broadcaster's equipment proposal, or its letter of March 9, 1995, which complained that Cablevision had not yet retested the station's signal and reiterated its demand for immediate carriage. Cablevision states that it did not provide a satisfactory response to any of these requests within the time period allowed by 76.61(a)(2) of the rules. Cablevision asserts that WMBC-TV's complaint should have been filed on or before February 3, 1995, within 60 days after the system's failure to respond to the station's letter of December 5, 1994. Cablevision also states that even if it were appropriate to measure WMBC-TV's 60 day time limit from the station's demand letter of March 6, the complaint should have been filed on or before May 5, 1995, which it was not. As for WMBC-TV's fiber optic carriage demands, Cablevision argues that its failure to respond to the station's December 5, 1995 demand within the 30 day period allowed by 76.61(a)(2), triggered WMBC-TV's obligation to file a complaint within 60 days. Even assuming arguendo, that the operator's failure to respond to WMBC-TV's December 5, 1994 proposal did not constitute a specific event triggering the 60 day filing deadline, the station's obligation was triggered on March 31, 1995 when Cablevision affirmatively denied the station's request for carriage on the systems via fiber optic cable. According to Cablevision, WMBC-TV's complaint as it relates to fiber optic carriage should have been on or before June 1, 1995, which it was not. 13. With regard to the Bayonne system, Cablevision explains that WMBC-TV renewed its demand for carriage by letter dated October 25, 1994. Within 30 days of receiving WMBC-TV's demand, Cablevision explains that it declined the station's carriage request noting that a survey of the station's signal had demonstrated that WMBC-TV did not qualify for mandatory carriage. Thereafter, the Bayonne system received a letter on December 5, 1994, from WMBC-TV challenging the operator's signal measurements and reiterating the station's demand for immediate carriage. Cablevision states it responded to this letter on December 29, 1994, which reaffirmed the Bayonne system's denial of carriage and explained Cablevision's reasons for believing it had complied with the Commission's signal testing and mandatory carriage requirements. According to Cablevision, in a January 10, 1995, letter WMBC-TV challenged the operator's December 29 response and demanded that the system re-test WMBC-TV's signal using equipment supplied by the station. Cablevision states that WMBC-TV has provided no evidence that Cablevision responded to the station's January 10 demand within the 30 day period allowed in 76.61(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 14. Cablevision asserts that WMBC-TV's letter of October 25, 1994, demanding immediate carriage of the station's over-the-air signal provided notice to the operator as required under the Commission's rules; thus, the Bayonne system's letter of November 29, 1994 affirmatively denying WMBC-TV's request and explaining the operator's reasons for believing that the station's signal did not qualify for mandatory carriage triggered the station's obligation within 60 days to file a must carry complaint. Cablevision further states that, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that WMBC-TV's October 25 carriage demand did not constitute notice, such notification was provided in the letter the operator received on December 5. Thus, Cablevision's response on December 29, 1994, reaffirming its denial of carriage triggered WMBC-TV's 60 day filing obligation; under this scenario, the station's complaint should have been filed, at the latest, on or before February 27, 1995. With regard to fiber optic carriage, Cablevision asserts that WMBC-TV provided no evidence that the station ever sought to deliver its signal to the Bayonne system via fiber optic cable. In any event, Cablevision explains that WMBC-TV was advised on March 31, 1995, that it would not be permitted to install fiber optic equipment at any of the systems. Thus, any such complaint in this regard should have been filed on or before May 30, 1995. 15. Cablevision also argues that its subsequent dealings with WMBC-TV, with regard to all four systems, did not resuscitate the station's 60 day filing deadline. Cablevision claims that WMBC-TV's arguments, labeling the operator's letters of May 23, 1995, and June 20, 1995 as delay tactics, are without merit. Cablevision first explains that its May 23 letter, responding to WMBC-TV's April 25 letter asking for information on retesting the station's signal using WMBC-TV-supplied equipment, made plain that the requested information had already been provided and that it was WMBC-TV, not Cablevision, that had terminated communications about retesting the station's over-the-air signal. The letter also reiterated Cablevision's willingness to re-test the signal. Cablevision additionally asserts that WMBC- TV's attack on its June 20 letter, which referenced insurance liabilities that would be incurred, is also without merit. The operator explains that insurance certificates are secured for the purpose of protecting a company from financial liability in the event of an accident, and unless the insured parties are properly identified, such certificates are potentially worthless; although WMBC-TV sent Cablevision a blank indemnification agreement, the attached certificate listed only Cablevision Systems Corporation as an insured party, rather than the subsidiary entities that actually operate the systems and would be the most obvious targets of a lawsuit in the event of an accident. Cablevision asserts that it did not quarrel with the language of the indemnification agreement, it simply asked WMBC-TV to provide certificates that properly identified the parties. The operator then explains that WMBC-TV did secure these certificates within two days of Cablevision's request yet it never received the necessary copies of these documents; instead, WMBC-TV filed its complaint without any prior notice or forewarning. In any event, Cablevision argues that the Commission has held that the statutory 60 day deadline will not be revived simply because a station initiates a new round of signal testing and carriage demands that simply reiterate demands that the station had made and had an obligation to enforce earlier. 16. In its reply, WMBC-TV asserts that Cablevision's opposition offers no factual or legal basis for denying its must carry complaint. WMBC-TV states that Cablevision's procedural objection ignores the ongoing nature of the discussions and correspondence regarding signal quality and re-testing that took place between the station and the operator during the fall of 1994 and spring of 1995, all without proper carriage of WMBC-TV and without a firm and final statement until late May and June 1995, that carriage would be denied. WMBC-TV asserts that throughout this discussion and negotiation process, Cablevision failed to comply with the Commission's most basic FCC requirements for retesting and providing information concerning that retesting. Moreover, WMBC-TV disagrees with Cablevision's contention that it is not required to carry a television station signal delivered via fiber optic cable arguing that the operator's stance is contrary to the intent behind the adoption of the 1992 Cable Act and the FCC's mandatory signal carriage rules. 17. WMBC-TV argues that all communications received from Cablevision prior to the letters of May 23 and June 20, 1995 did not represent the type of specific events described in 76.7(c)(4)(iii) triggering the filing of a must carry complaint. According to the station, the letters cited by the operator dealt with ongoing discussions of signal quality and carriage issues and almost all specifically ended with an invitation to keep addressing the issue. The station argues that the operator's first true refusal to carry letter came on May 23, after the station threatened to file a complaint in a previous correspondence dated April 25. WMBC- TV also rejects Cablevision's attempt to artificially segregate the technical proposals regarding fiber optic delivery from the over-the-air carriage proposals and then derive different procedural deadlines from them; the station argues that this approach mistakenly ignores the interrelated nature of the technical discussions. On this point, WMBC-TV maintains that it had proposed fiber optic delivery as an interim solution until the necessary re-testing could be completed. The station also argues that Cablevision's opposition on a system-by-system basis with various dates as alternative triggering events, paints a highly confusing picture that tries to label almost every letter but Cablevision's May and June 1995 contacts as procedurally relevant. According to the station, this argument ignores that the cited letters, by their terms, continually urged negotiation and suggested WMBC-TV take some further step to resolve the problem. 18. With respect to the Riverview system, WMBC-TV argue that the letters cited by Cablevision---dated December 29, 1994; January 9, 1995; and February 17, 1995---all manifest an interest in continued discussions about resolving the signal carriage problem. WMBC-TV also asserts that Cablevision's procedural claims regarding the Newark system are similarly undercut by the terms of the letters to which it cites; for example, the November 23, 1994 letter regarding Newark cited by Cablevision as a triggering event encouraged a follow- up when Cablevision asked the station to contact it in writing regarding the re-testing of WMBC-TV's signal. WMBC-TV states that subsequent correspondence from Cablevision dated January 6, 1995 and January 11, 1995 also discussed signal quality measurements and concluded with the phrase, "We look forward to working with you." With regard to the Bergen system, the station states that Cablevision's contention, that it never provided a satisfactory response to WMBC-TV's letters during the winter of 1995 and thus triggering the filing of a complaint for being non-responses, is unavailing. Contrary to Cablevision's contention, the Bergen system provided several letters over the course of months. For example, WMBC-TV states that Cablevision unsuccessfully attempted to defend its non- complaint technical information in a letter of December 29, 1994, which as always ended with an invitation to work together, and on March 8, 1995, requested more information about WMBC-TV's fiber optic proposal. According to WMBC-TV, the correspondence regarding the Bayonne system tells the same story of ongoing contacts and attempts at resolution of the signal quality differences. The station cites a November 29, 1994 letter from Cablevision which includes insufficient technical data about non-compliant signal tests and closes with language about working together; the operator's letter of December 29, 1994 provides the same verbatim defense of its signal quality measurements offered with respect to the other systems. 19. WMBC-TV asserts that its dialogue with various systems continued on a weekly basis through early spring 1995. The station reiterates the importance of its April 25, 1995 letter, that for the first time, noted if Cablevision did not make the necessary testing arrangements that were repeatedly requested, it would have no alternative but to file a complaint with the FCC. WMBC-TV also re-argues that nothing in the 1992 Cable Act excludes fiber optics as a means to deliver a good quality signal to a cable operator's principal headend. Citing the Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259, WMBC-TV states that the Commission has refused to exclude a station's use of "microwave or other means" to deliver a signal to a system, after concluding that such means are no different from providing improved equipment such as specialized antennae. DISCUSSION 20. We believe that WMBC-TV's complaint was timely filed. Unlike the situation in Fant Broadcasting Company of Nebraska, Inc., cited by Cablevision, at no time during its continuing correspondence with the station did Cablevision indicate a clear refusal to carry the signal of WMBC-TV, but continued to encourage the station to provide information concerning means whereby the station's signal could be delivered in a good quality condition to Cablevision's principal headend. 21. We disagree with Cablevision's contention that it is not in violation of the must-carry rules. It is undisputed that WMBC-TV is a qualified local commercial television station entitled to be carried on Cablevision's systems pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 76.56(b). It is also not disputed that Cablevision's systems have more than 12 usable activated channels, and are, therefore, required to carry local commercial television stations on up to one-third of the usable activated channels of the systems. The remaining issue which needs to be addressed is that of WMBC-TV's signal quality. 22. One exception to the carriage requirement is that a cable operator need not afford must-carry status to an otherwise qualified local commercial television station if the station fails to provide a good quality signal to the system's principle headend. We find that WMBC-TV has satisfied the criteria for carriage by committing to install the equipment necessary to deliver a good quality signal to Cablevision's headend. The 1992 Cable Act requires only that a station "agree to be responsible for the costs of delivering to the cable system a signal of good quality." In this instance, WMBC-TV has agreed to be responsible for installing all specialized equipment necessary to deliver a good quality signal to Cablevision's headend. Cablevision cannot, therefore, deny the station carriage on the ground that the Commission's signal quality standards have not been met. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the complaint (CSR 4553-M) filed July 7, 1995, by Mountain Broadcasting Corporation, is GRANTED. Cablevision Systems Corporation IS ORDERED to commence carriage of WMBC-TV sixty (60) days from the date that the station provides the necessary specialized equipment to receive a good quality signal at Cablevision's headend. 24. 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 William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau