********************************************************    
                                       NOTICE
  ********************************************************
                              
              This document was converted from
         WordPerfect or Word 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 the Matter of:

Gary M. Cocola

Complaint for Carriage of KGMC(TV)
Clovis, California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)





       CSR-5460-M

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  April 7, 2000              Released:  April 10, 2000

By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau:

     I.   INTRODUCTION
1.     Gary M. Cocola, licensee of KGMC(TV) (Ch. 43), Clovis, California, has filed a must carry
complaint, pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act, as amended, and Sections 76.7 and
76.61(a) of the Commission's rules, alleging that Falcon Cable Systems Company, II, L.P. ("Falcon" or
"Cable Operator") has denied carriage of KGMC(TV) on Falcon's cable system serving Porterville, Hot
Springs and Posey, California, (the "Falcon cable communities").  An opposition to the complaint was filed
by Falcon and KGMC(TV) filed a reply.  
II.  BACKGROUND

2.     Pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the
Commission in Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues ("Must Carry Order"), commercial television broadcast stations are
entitled to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within the station's market.  A station's
market for this purpose is its "designated market area," or DMA, as defined by Nielsen Media Research. 
A DMA is a geographic market designation that defines each television market exclusive of others, based
on measured viewing patterns.
III. DISCUSSION

3.     In support of its request for carriage, KGMC(TV) states that the station meets the definition of
a "local commercial television station" and therefore is eligible to invoke the mandatory carriage
provisions of Section 614 of the Communications Act in the Falcon cable communities.  Specifically,
KGMC(TV) states that:  (1) KGMC(TV) and Falcon's cable systems are located within the Fresno-Visalia,
California, DMA; (2) Falcon's cable systems will not incur copyright liability for the carriage of
KGMC(TV); and (3) KGMC(TV) has worked with Falcon to ensure the delivery of a good quality signal to
the Falcon cable system headend.  In addition, KGMC(TV) argues that, pursuant to Section 76.56(b)(2) of
the Commission's rules, Falcon's cable system has ample carriage capacity in order to accommodate the
carriage of KGMC(TV).
4.     The only issue in dispute between the parties is that regarding the delivery of a good quality
signal to Falcon's cable system headends.  KGMC(TV) states that it purchased and mounted on Falcon's
Porterville tower, at its own expense, a specially cut antenna and amplifier for the KGMC(TV) signal. 
According to KGMC(TV), on September 9, 1999, engineers for both Falcon and KGMC(TV) went to the
Porterville headend to measure the KGMC(TV) signal which, KGMC(TV) represents, was +12 dBm, well
above the Commission's requirement for carriage.  
5.     In response, Falcon argues that KGMC(TV) is in error by assuming that the Falcon cable
communities are all served by the same headend facility.  Falcon states that the cable communities are
served by three separate headends located in Porterville, Pine Flat, and Posey.  Falcon contends that
KGMC(TV) does not deliver a signal of sufficient strength to any of these three system headends and refers
to signal test results taken by Falcon in January 2000 ("January 2000 tests").  Falcon also notes that in
addition to KGMC(TV)'s failure to provide a signal of sufficient strength to the headends at issue, it is not
satisfied that KGMC(TV) is able to provide an adequate quality signal.
6.     KGMC(TV) responds by arguing that it was never informed by Falcon that Falcon's cable
system was served by more than one headend.  KGMC(TV) states that it recognizes its obligation to
deliver an adequate signal to each Falcon headend, and it has done so with respect to the Porterville system,
and will do so for the Hot Springs and Posey systems if Falcon is able to demonstrate, by proper joint signal
testing measurements, that KGMC(TV) signal improvement is necessary in those communities. 
KGMC(TV) also reiterates its claim regarding the sufficiency of its September 9, 1999 test results taken at
the Porterville headend and that testing was done with proper equipment and in the presence of Falcon's
engineer.  With regard to the January 2000 tests, KGMC(TV) argues that these tests are invalid because
no notice was given by Falcon to KGMC(TV) that such tests were being taken and, in addition, it appears
that Falcon measured the signal before it passed through the equipment installed by KGMC(TV) at the
Porterville headend.  Finally, KGMC(TV) reiterates its claim that it agrees to be responsible for delivering
a good quality signal to the Falcon headends.
7.     We grant KGMC(TV)'s complaint.  We find that the representations made by KGMC(TV)
demonstrate that it is a local full-power commercial television station qualified for carriage on Falcon's
cable systems.  Under the Commission's must carry rules, cable operators have the burden of showing that
a commercial station that is located in the same television market as a cable operator is not entitled to
carriage.  It is undisputed that all of the Falcon cable communities are located within the Fresno-Visalia
DMA, and, as such, all are located within the same television market as KGMC(TV).  In addition, because
KGMC(TV) is located within the same television market as the Falcon cable communities, KGMC(TV) is
a "local signal" under Section 111 of the Copyright Act.  Therefore, carriage of KGMC(TV) would not
expose Falcon to any increased copyright liability.
8.     With regard to the signal strength, we believe that the Cable Operator has demonstrated that
KGMC(TV) provides insufficient signal strength to the headends in question; however, we note that the
station has agreed to provide specialized equipment and, in fact, already has done so, at least at the
Porterville headend, in order to deliver a good quality signal. The Commission has held that a cable
operator cannot refuse to carry a television station that agrees to purchase and install, at its own expense,
the equipment necessary to deliver an adequate signal to the operator's headend.  To determine whether
an adequate signal level is delivered to a system's principal headend, the Communications Act mandates
that measurements be taken at the input terminals of a system's signal processing equipment using the
specialized equipment provided by a television station.  In this regard, we believe that such measurements
should be taken at the input to the first piece of active processing equipment relevant to the signal at issue. 
Falcon should follow this procedure when measuring the strength of KGMC(TV)'s signal at each of its
respective headends and determine whether a good quality signal of adequate strength is being provided. 
Consequently, in view of the foregoing, we order Falcon to carry KGMC(TV)'s signal.
IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

9.        Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (47 U.S.C.  534), that the complaint filed by Gary M. Cocola, licensee of KGMC(TV),
Clovis, California, IS GRANTED.  Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. IS  ORDERED to commence
carriage of KGMC(TV) within sixty (60) days after KGMC(TV) provides a good quality signal to Falcon
Cable Systems Company II, L.P.'s headends.





10.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that KGMC(TV) shall notify Falcon Cable Systems Company
II, L.P. 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 providing a good quality signal.
11.    This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules.

                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Deborah Klein, Chief
                         Consumer Protection and Competition Division
                         Cable Services Bureau