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 the Matte r of ) ) ) Complaint of KSLS, Inc. ) CSR 4692-M against MultiVision Cable TV ) ) Request for Carriage ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 9, 1996 Released: July 17, 1996 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. On March 1, 1996, KSLS, Inc., licensee of television broadcast Station KSCI (Ind., Ch. 18), San Bernardino, California, filed a must carry complaint requesting that the Commission order ML Media Partners, L.P., trading as MultiVision Cable TV ("MultiVision") to commence carriage of KSCI on its Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, California cable system pursuant to 76.7 and 76.61 of the Commission's Rules. MultiVision filed an opposition to KSCI's complaint on April 3, 1996 to which KSCI replied. 2. In support of its request, KSCI states that it initially contacted MultiVision regarding carriage on its system by letter dated September 7, 1995 and requested a meeting with the system's engineers to verify the signal strength of its signal. When MultiVision failed to respond, KSCI states that it served a formal request for carriage on the system on December 20, 1995. Once again, MultiVision failed to respond. KSCI maintains that since MultiVision has not offered any legitimate basis for refusing carriage of its signal the Commission should not only order the system to carry KSCI, but require that such carriage of the station commence within 30 days, rather than the period mandated pursuant to 76.61(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 3. In its opposition, MultiVision asserts that KSCI's complaint should be dismissed because it was not timely filed and it did not have the necessary attachments as required by the Commission's rules. MultiVision claims that KSCI's initial official request for carriage was in a letter dated June 7, 1993. MultiVision states that it responded to this request on July 2, 1993, advising KSCI that it did not meet the must carry requirements due to copyright liability and failure to meet the signal strength criteria. At the same time, MultiVision continues, it stated its willingness to discuss these issues further with KSCI. MultiVision states that KSCI did not take any further action in response to this letter until the submission of its September 7, 1995 letter, which MultiVision maintains is a "long-delayed" response. Indeed, this letter references KSCI's prior carriage request and even lists the reasons for denial of its carriage. While KSCI claims that its December 20, 1995 letter is its formal request for carriage, MultiVision contends, that even discounting the earlier July 2, 1993 letter, the September 7th letter could more properly be considered a request for carriage and that the requirements for the timely filing of a must carry complaint would run from that date. MultiVision concludes that KSCI's own inaction in failing to follow-up its initial must carry requests clearly demonstrates that KSCI failed to protect and preserve its must carry rights on the Hermosa Beach system and is thus not entitled to or eligible for carriage. 4. In reply, KSCI argues that its initial June 7, 1993 letter was sent in compliance of the Commission's requirement that all commercial television stations make their initial must carry and/or retransmission consent election by June 17, 1993. MultiVision's attempt to transform this letter into a formal request for carriage under Section 76.61(a)(1), contends KSCI, is meritless and should be rejected. Further, KSCI states that MultiVision cannot sensibly argue that KSCI should have preserved its carriage rights by filing a complaint within 60 days of the system's July 2, 1993 response because at that time KSCI had no carriage rights to preserve due to the copyright liability problem. KSCI maintains that it was only after the elimination of the copyright liability requirements for market stations in 1994 that it was able to pursue its must carry rights. Its September 7th letter, therefore, was not a formal request for carriage, but rather was intended to inform MultiVision of the change in the copyright law and a request for KSCI to verify KSCI's signal strength at MultiVision's principal headend. It was only after MultiVision failed to reply to that request, concludes KSCI, that it filed its formal carriage request on December 20th. DISCUSSION 5. We do not agree with the arguments raised by MultiVision herein and we find that, absent any showing that KSCI does not provide a signal of good quality, MultiVision is required to carry KSCI. Section 76.64(f)(1) required that all commercial television stations "make elections between retransmission consent and must-carry status. . .by June 17, 1993." This KSCI did in its June 7, 1993 letter to MultiVision. This type of notification is parallel to MultiVision's obligations under 76.58(d) which required the system to notify, prior to May 3, 1993, all local commercial stations which failed to be entitled to carriage; a requirement it fulfilled in its April 30, 1993 letter to KSCI. Thus, KSCI's June 7th letter cannot be construed as an official request for carriage pursuant to 76.61(a)(1). Moreover, KSCI's September 7, 1995 letter also cannot be considered an official request for carriage. It is clear from the language used therein that, since the elimination of one of the barriers to its carriage (i.e. copyright liability), KSCI is merely trying to verify its compliance with the signal strength criteria in order to be able to assert its mandatory carriage rights. We conclude, therefore, that KSCI's official carriage request is its December 20, 1995 letter and that its subsequent must carry complaint against MultiVision was timely filed pursuant to 76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Rules. ORDERING CLAUSE 6. Accordingly, the petition filed March 1, 1996, by CLASS, Inc. IS GRANTED, in accordance with 614(d)(3) (47 U.S.C. 534) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and MultiVision Cable TV IS ORDERED to commence carriage of KSCI on its cable system serving Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, California sixty days (60) from the release date of this Order. 7. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by  0.312 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gary M. Laden, Chief Consumer Protection and Competition Division Cable Services Bureau