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/ ***************************************************************** ******** $// MO&O granting WNDS carriage on system at Braintree, MA, DA 96-359 //$ $/ 76.55 Definitions applicable to the must-carry rules. /$ $/ 76.61 Disputes concerning carriage. /$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 DA 96-359 In re: ) ) ) Complaint of CTV of Derry, Inc. ) CSR-4583-M against A-R Cable Services, Inc. ) MA0217 ) ) Request for Carriage ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 12, 1996 Released: March 22, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. On July 31, 1995, Television Broadcast Station WNDS (Ind., Channel 50), Derry, New Hampshire, filed a request with the Commission asking that it ". . . instruct Cablevision to permit WNDS to install receiving equipment, including amplification, that will permit WNDS to meet all the technical criteria set forth in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Having met this criteria, WNDS requests that the Commission instruct Cablevision to carry WNDS on its cable system serving all of the communities contained on its Braintree system serving the Boston ADI." In response, A-R Cable Services, Inc. d/b/a Cablevision ("Cablevision"), operator of cable systems in the Boston suburbs (including Braintree, Massachusetts), filed an "Opposition To Complaint" on October 5, 1995, and CTV of Derry, Inc., licensee of WNDS, filed a "Response To Opposition To Complaint" on October 25, 1995. PARTIES' ARGUMENTS 2. According to WNDS, it initially requested carriage by Cablevision on December 9, 1994, but the system did not respond to this request, so WNDS repeated its request by letter dated February 8, 1995. On April 5, 1995, joint measurements of WNDS's signal were made by Mr. Herb Walters of Cablevision and the station's Chief Engineer, Mr. Paul Hunter. This was followed by a letter on April 11, 1995, from the station's General Manager, Mrs. Cole, requesting permission to install equipment at the system's headend, which the system never answered. However, after several telephone calls, on June 1, 1995, Cablevision's General Manager, Mr. Paul Morton, ". . .finally took the position on the telephone that `amplification' was not permitted to increase the signal level to the FCC requirement for must carry status and therefore would not carry WNDS." By letter dated June 25, 1995, WNDS informed Cablevision that it would file a complaint with the Commission within the next month. 3. In response, Cablevision asserts that WNDS' petition is untimely, because the system had sent WNDS a letter dated February 16, 1995, stating that, due to its weak signal strength, the station was ineligible for mandatory carriage by Cablevision. However, the system's engineer, Mr. Herb Walters, did agree to remeasure WNDS' signal strength on April 5, 1995, together with two of the station's engineers, Mr. Paul Hunter and Mr. John Fergie. All of the measurements were far below the +3.75 dBmV (-45 dBm) signal strength mandated by Commission's rules, and Mr. Fergie offered to return later and ". . . test the signal with a preamplifier installed after the antenna and before the transmission line." Mr. Walters, however, rejected this offer immediately as being inconsistent with the Cable Act and with good engineering practice. According to Cablevision, when it didn't respond within thirty days to WNDS' letter of December 9, 1994, the station had sixty days from January 8, 1995, to file a complaint with the Commission, pursuant to 76.61(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. Alternatively, when the system rejected WNDS' preamplification request on April 5, 1995, WNDS had until June 5, 1995, to file its complaint, but having missed both of these deadlines, its present pleading should be dismissed as untimely, regardless of whether or not the system's General Manager, Mr. Morton, failed to respond to WNDS' letter of April 11, 1995, requesting permission to install a preamplifier at the system's headend until June 1, 1995. Cablevision also contends that WNDS' assertion that it can easily meet the Commission's requirement of -45 dBm (or +3.75 dBmV) by using an amplifier placed before the transmission line but after the antenna is irrelevant because using a preamplifier in this manner would only serve to amplify a poor quality signal. While this procedure results in increased signal strength, it does nothing to improve such things as a signal's carrier-to-noise ratio, which WNDS states is the determinative factor when assessing signal quality. WNDS claims that this is the reason that the Commission requires that signal measurements be taken at the input terminal (i. e., in front, not in back of the amplifier). 4. Citing the Commission's Report and Order in MM Dockets 92-259, 90-4, and 92- 295, WNDS notes that the Commission specifically stated that improving a station's signal quality was the responsibility of the broadcast station involved, and that in order to do so the station might need to increase its tower height or to use microwave relay or amplification equipment or an improved antenna. According to WNDS, utilizing a low noise amplifier to overcome the transmission line loss in this case is in accordance with acceptable engineering practice. WNDS notes that while Cablevision believes that the amplifier is the first active piece of processing equipment, WNDS believes that the first active piece of processing equipment is the cable system's processor. Moreover, WNDS notes that Cablevision itself found on April 5, 1995, that WNDS's signal at the system's headend measured between -1.0 and -3.5 dBmV without amplification at the end of a transmission line. "This is not a poor signal . . . " the station claims, adding that Cablevision presently uses preamplification equipment in several of its systems, including Braintree, to improve the strength of other broadcast stations, but that when asked what signal utilized the amplifier attached to the chimney on the upper roof, Mr. Walters said that he did not know. Finally, WNDS argues that Mr. Walters, a cable technician, could not have know what the system's policy was concerning the use of preamplifiers on April 5, 1995, when the General Manager, Mr. Morton, did not know until he had consulted with the system's attorney on June 1, 1995, and then notified the station that it would not be carried by the system. DISCUSSION 5. Initially, we find that WNDS's carriage request was filed within sixty days of the system's refusal to carry it. The parties in this instance have had a long history of negotiations. Absent a denial reduced to writing, we find the negotiations were terminated by a conversation held on June 1,1995, between WNDS's engineering consultant and the cable system's General Manager who informed the station that it would not be carried on Cablevision's system. Consequently, WNDS's request will not be dismissed as untimely, pursuant to 76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's Rules. 6. When the Commission adopted its Report and Order, it stated that where a signal fails to meet Commission standards, we do not expect the cable operator to bear the burden of improving the signal if the problem results from an unsatisfactory local television signal, but we do expect the cable operator to cooperate with the television station in resolving the problem: it is the television station's obligation to bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality signal to the system's principal headend. This may include improved antennas, increased tower height, microwave relay equipment, amplification equipment and tests that may be needed to determine whether the station's signal complies with the signal strength requirements, especially if the cable system's over-the-air reception equipment is already in place and is operating properly. (footnote omitted.) In this particular instance, the data submitted by Cablevision, however, is inadequate to demonstrate that WNDS delivers a weak signal to Cablevision's headend, since Cablevision has not only refused to allow WNDS to test it signal using a preamplifier but Cablevision also failed to follow generally acceptable engineering practices when it measured WNDS's signal strength. 7. Good engineering practices mandate that in cases where test results are less than - 51 dBm for a UHF station, there must not only be four readings taken over a two-hour period, but readings must also be taken over a 24-hour period with measurements not more than four hours apart to establish reliable test results where the initial readings are between - 51 dBm and -45 dBm, inclusive. In this case, Cablevision has performed neither the two- hour nor the 24-hour test. In addition, Cablevision should conduct its testing in a manner similar to that which it uses to receive other over-the-air television broadcast stations. Test data should include the height of the antenna, together with the height of other UHF television broadcast antennas currently in place, and any additional testing should be done in the presence of a representative from WNDS. Moreover, apart from maintaining that WNDS's station provides it with a poor quality signal, Cablevision has offered no evidence to substantiate its claim in this regard. Lastly, any data submitted with regard to the above issues must be clear and concise and conform with good engineering practices. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. In view of the foregoing, we find that Cablevision has failed to adequately demonstrate WNDS's poor signal quality at Cablevision's designated headend. 9. Accordingly, the request filed July 31, 1995, by Television Broadcast Station WNDS (Ind., Channel 50), Derry, New Hampshire IS GRANTED, pursuant to 614(d)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U. S. C. 534), and A-R Cable Services, Inc., d/b/a Cablevision IS ORDERED to commence carriage of WNDS on its Braintree, Massachusetts cable television system sixty (60) days from the date that Station WNDS provides Cablevision with the additional equipment referenced in this Order, unless Cablevision submits the engineering data required herein to support its assertions of inadequate signal strength and poor signal quality from WNDS at Cablevision's principal headend within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the above additional equipment.. 10. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau