******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re: ) ) Complaint of Louisiana Christian) CSR-4870-M Broadcasting, Inc. against TCA ) Management Company ) ) Petition for Reconsideration ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 14, 1998 Released: October 21, 1998 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. TCA Management Company ("TCA"), operator of four cable systems serving fifteen communities in Louisiana has requested reconsideration of the Bureau's March 5, 1997 decision which granted an unopposed must carry complaint filed by Louisiana Christian Broadcasting, licensee of Station KMCT-TV (Ind., Ch. 39), West Monroe, Louisiana. In that Order, the Bureau ordered TCA to commence carriage of the station unless it submitted information within fifteen days of the release date of the order to support its claim of poor signal quality against KMCT-TV which was included in an attachment to a pleading submitted by KMCT-TV. KMCT-TV filed an opposition to this petition to which TCA replied. In addition, KMCT-TV filed a supplemental request for expedited handling of this petition. 2. In support of its request for reconsideration, TCA states that it did not participate in the original complaint filed by KMCT-TV because it was never served with a copy of that complaint by KMCT-TV. Moreover, TCA states that that complaint was defective because KMCT-TV failed to inform the Commission of an additional signal strength test taken at the Ruston headend, a copy of which was forwarded to KMCT-TV by letter dated December 19, 1996. In any event, TCA maintains that of the four headends serving the communities referenced in KMCT-TV's original complaint (Ruston, Jonesboro, Winnfield and Bastrop), only the Bastrop headend, which has been carrying the signal for some time, receives a good quality signal from KMCT-TV. For the remaining three headends, TCA points to signal strength tests it performed of KMCT- TV's signal at each location which it maintains clearly shows that KMCT-TV's signal falls well below the Commission's established -45 dBm criteria for UHF stations. Moreover, TCA states that the tests conducted by KMCT-TV and referenced in its original complaint were totally inadequate and inaccurate as they were conducted inside a building at Louisiana Tech University, with a small loop UHF antenna at an undetermined height, instead of at the cable systems' principal headends. Therefore, as a result of the inconsistencies in KMCT-TV's original complaint and in view of the poor signal quality of KMCT-TV's signal at its remaining headends, TCA requests that the Bureau grant its request for reconsideration. 3. In opposition, KMCT-TV admits that it failed to include TCA on the certificate of service attached to its original complaint. In any event, KMCT-TV states that, as it has now provided TCA with a copy of that complaint, thus curing the original deficiency, TCA has had ample opportunity to oppose the original complaint via its reconsideration request, and TCA has not been prejudiced in any way by the inadvertent oversight. Further, KMCT-TV argues that, even assuming that its signal is deficient as TCA claims, it has given KMCT-TV a written commitment to provide any specialized equipment necessary to assure a good quality signal. KMCT-TV states, therefore, that TCA is not relieved of its obligation to carry its signal. Moreover, KMCT-TV maintains that not only did TCA fail to provide a copy of its first signal test to KMCT- TV at the time of the initial request for carriage as required by the Commission's Rules, but it performed its second test without permitting the station to participate or provide any assistance. In addition, KMCT-TV points out that the signal strength tests included with TCA's reconsideration do not appear to have been conducted according to sound engineering practices. In view of these deficiencies and its stated assurance to provide whatever equipment is necessary, KMCT-TV asks that TCA's reconsideration request be denied. 4. In reply, TCA states that, despite KMCT-TV's assertions, it provided the station with a copy of its latest signal strength test of KMCT-TV's signal at the Ruston headend on December 19, 1996, and even offered to have KMCT-TV's engineer come to the headend site to review the signal quality issues. Had it received a copy of the complaint at that time, TCA maintains that it could have responded to the premature filing of KMCT-TV's must carry complaint and worked with the station. In addition, since the Jonesboro and Winnfield systems were apparently included in KMCT-TV's complaint, although not mentioned in KMCT-TV's original September 17, 1996 request for carriage, TCA states that it later conducted additional signal strength tests at those headends as well. TCA indicates that those tests also confirm KMCT-TV's inadequate signal strength and poor signal quality at those locations. TCA concludes that should KMCT-TV wish to install equipment at any of these three headend locations, it will cooperate and work with the station's engineers in an attempt to resolve any signal quality problems and will agree to carry the station once those problems are resolved. However, TCA reaffirms its contention that the Bureau's original decision in this case was based on incomplete and inaccurate information and that there should be no outstanding order against TCA for any system where KMCT-TV fails to provide a good quality signal. 5. In a supplemental filing, KMCT-TV requests that the Bureau issue a final order in this proceeding due to the fact that TCA has refused to fulfill its commitment and obligation to conduct joint signal testing by repeatedly ignoring KMCT-TV's attempts to coordinate such tests. KMCT-TV states that it notified TCA of the station's improvement to its facilities and the purchase of additional tower equipment. Moreover, KMCT- TV maintains that in anticipation of the joint testing, and in deference to TCA's allegations of poor signal quality, it ordered and received pre-amplifiers and high-gain antennas should they prove necessary. However, KMCT-TV asserts that it has never been given the opportunity to resolve this problem due to TCA's intransigence in this matter. DISCUSSION 6. The petition for reconsideration will be granted. Failure to serve a copy of a complaint on the party whose conduct is complained of, given the nature of the dispute here, vitiates the basis for the underlying decision. While it might be possible in some instances to treat the petition for reconsideration as if it were the response to the initial complaint and adjudicate the proceeding on that basis, the record in this proceeding is now sufficiently confused that we do not believe that would be an appropriate course to follow. Accordingly, TCA's petition will be granted. This action, however, is without prejudice to KMCT-TV filing a new complaint. 7. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration, filed March 26, 1997, on behalf of TCA Management Company, IS GRANTED. 8. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated in 0.321 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau