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 pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ************************************************************************* Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re: ) ) ) Complaint of CTV of Derry, Inc. ) CSR-4679-M against Cablevision of Framingham, Inc.) MA0094 ) ) Request for Carriage ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 26, 1996 Released: July 5, 1996 By the Acting Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. On February 20, 1996, Television Broadcast Station WNDS (Ind., Channel 50), Derry, New Hampshire, filed a "Complaint" with the Commission noting that because its city of license, Derry, is located within the Boston, Massachusetts area of dominant influence (or "ADI"), it is entitled to mandatory carriage on the Framingham, Massachusetts cable system, which is also located in the Boston ADI, and which is operated by Cablevision of Framingham, Inc. ("Cablevision"), pursuant to 76.55 and 76.56 of the Commission's Rules. This complaint is unopposed. PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS 2. According to WNDS, it initially mailed a request for carriage to Cablevision on November 21, 1994, with follow-up letters dated December 27, 1994, and January 1995. Cablevision responded February 14, 1995, claiming that WNDS was not entitled to mandatory carriage, because it did not provide a good quality signal at the system's headend. However, it added that within a week, the system would retest the station's signal and would provide WNDS with the results. When this did not occur, the station's General Manager, Ms. Donna Cole, requested permission to perform measurements at Cablevision's headend by letters dated November 27, 1995 and December 18, 1995. In response, Cablevision sent the station a letter dated December 21, 1995, together with some signal measurements made December 14, 1995, again claiming that WNDS' signal did not meet FCC standards for a good quality signal, concluding that it was not entitled to carriage by the system. Cablevision refused to allow the station to install an antenna and transmission line to conduct its own signal quality tests. 3. By letter dated January 9, 1996, the station's Engineering Consultant, Mr. John A. Fergie, responded to Cablevision that its tests had the following shortcomings: the antenna used, Archer Model VU-90, has a gain of 6 db over the entire UHF band and is intended for home use; it is not possible to determine the gain at WNDS' frequency and good engineering practice mandates that the same type and quality of antennas be used for testing as are used by the system for reception of other off-air signals; the size and type of transmission line used was not given, but only identified a cable loss of 3.44 db per 100 feet, which constitutes a very high loss; the measurements were made at 66 feet above ground level on a tower that was considerably higher; it is impossible to tell from these tests whether or not WNDS has the necessary signal level of +3.75 dBmV at the input of the system's processor. Cablevision responded by letter dated February 13, 1996, which specified the type of transmission line used in the test, RG-11. 4. Station WNDS states that it is willing to bear the expense of delivering a good quality signal to the system's headend, and it notes that Cablevision has yet to reach its maximum must- carry capacity. The station adds that its signal does not substantially duplicate the signal of any other local station, and it argues that Cablevision's measurements are not adequate to demonstrate that WNDS has insufficient signal strength at Cablevision's headend to qualify as a must-carry station, pursuant to 76.55(c)(3) of the Commission's Rules, because it did not specify the orientation of the antenna used, or the make or model number of the transmission line, and it did not indicate the weather conditions at the time of the tests. In addition, WNDS notes that the test results provided had only one measurement that was taken over a two-hour period. Pursuant to 76.7(a)(4)(iii) of the Commission's Rules, WNDS filed this "Complaint" within sixty days of Cablevision's letter dated December 21, 1995, which constituted a denial of the station's request for carriage. DISCUSSION 5. When the Commission adopted its Report and Order in MM Dockets 92-259, 90-4, and 92-295, it specified that, although television stations are responsible for delivering good quality signals to cable systems' headends, in order to do so cable operators must permit television stations to test and to install such things as ". . . improved antennas, increased tower height, microwave relay equipment, and amplification equipment." In this particular instance, we need not reach the issue of availability of equipment, because the cable operator has failed to adequately demonstrate that WNDS delivers a weak signal to Cablevision's headend. Not only has Cablevision refused to allow WNDS to test its signal using an improved antenna or other essential equipment, but Cablevision also failed to follow generally acceptable engineering practices when it measured WNDS's signal strength, including using equipment which had outdated calibration (such as the Hewlett Packard 8590, which in this instance was last calibrated November 29, 1989). 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 signal level testing with measurements made with generally accepted equipment currently used to receive signals of similar frequency, range, type, or distance from Cablevision's principal headend. Test data should include the time of day and the prevailing weather conditions, the height of the antenna used, and the height of other UHF television broadcast antennas currently in place. Moreover, any additional testing preferably should be done in the presence of a representative from WNDS, and all signal level readings should be taken at the input of the cable operator's first active device, with no adjustments either for cable loss or for antenna gain. In addition, any data submitted with regard to the above issues must be clear and concise and conform with good engineering practices. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, the request filed February 20, 1996, 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 47 CFR 76.56(b). WNDS shall notify Cablevision in writing of its carriage and channel position elections (76.56, 76.57, and 76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules) within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Cablevision of Framingham, Inc. IS ORDERED to commence carriage of WNDS on its cable television system serving Framingham, Massachusetts sixty (60) days from the release date of this Order. 7. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gary M. Laden, Acting Chief Consumer Protection & Competition Division Cable Services Bureau