******************************************************** 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 Maranatha Broadcasting ) CSR-4896-M Company, Inc. against Suburban Cable TV ) Co., Inc. ) ) Request for Carriage ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 6, 1997 Released: May 12, 1997 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc., licensee of Station WFMZ-TV (Ind., Ch. 69), Allentown, Pennsylvania, filed a "Complaint" with the Commission, pursuant to 76.61 of the Commission's Rules, claiming that Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. has refused carriage of its station on its cable system serving Turnersville, Buena Vista, Cheselhurst, Folson, Monroe Township, Washington Township, Waterford and Winslow, New Jersey, even though the station and Suburban's system are both located in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ADI. Suburban has filed an opposition to the complaint to which WFMZ-TV replied. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 2. In support of its request, WFMZ-TV states that it requested carriage on Suburban's system by letter dated September 30, 1996. WFMZ-TV indicates that in that letter it pointed out to Suburban that it is a local commercial television station within the meaning of 76.56(b) and 76.55(c), that its signal is not substantially duplicated by any other station carried by the system, and that its carriage on Suburban's system would incur no copyright liability. Moreover, WFMZ-TV states that it informed Suburban that it would, if necessary, provide any equipment needed to ensure a good quality signal at Suburban's principal headend. WFMZ-TV maintains that Suburban neither responded to its September 30th letter nor added WFMZ-TV's signal to its system and therefore can be deemed to have denied WFMZ-TV's carriage request. WFMZ-TV concludes that in view of the fact that its signal is fully qualified for carriage on Suburban's system, the Commission should order the system to carry the station. 3. In its opposition, Suburban states that, in the present case, as WFMZ-TV requested carriage from the system's previous owner, Jones Intercable, it is unaware of what steps Jones may have taken in responding to WFMZ-TV's must carry request. However, upon acquiring the system, Suburban states that it undertook signal strength measurements of WFMZ-TV at the Turnersville system principal headend which indicated that the station's signal did not meet Commission criteria. Suburban states that it disagrees with WFMZ-TV's assumption that merely because it has offered to provide any "reasonably necessary" equipment to ensure a good quality signal that it has fully met its statutory obligations. Suburban argues that Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, does not require cable operators to "employ extraordinary measures or specialized equipment when making measurements for stations that are not currently carried," but only that systems use good engineering practices when measuring a station's signal. Suburban states that it has done this. Therefore, as WFMZ-TV is unable to deliver a good quality signal to its principal headend, Suburban argues that WFMZ-TV has no real basis for its complaint. 4. In reply, WFMZ-TV argues that the signal tests submitted by Suburban do not answer the question of WFMZ-TV's alleged poor signal quality since the tests performed by Suburban were not conducted in the same manner as that used to receive the system's other over-the-air signals. WFMZ-TV states that Suburban used a Lindsay Model 10LE2-13 FM-U Search Antenna which WFMZ-TV maintains is a wide-band antenna not typically used by cable operators for the regular reception of UHF signals. Indeed, WFMZ-TV notes the Lindsay antenna, in particular, is ill-suited to the reception of WFMZ-TV which operates on Channel 69, at the upper extremity of the UHF band. WFMZ-TV points out that on other systems where the cable operator has claimed results similar to those of Suburban, the installation of a custom-cut antenna and a pre-amplifier achieved a 40 dB improvement in its signal. WFMZ-TV argues that it is evident that signal tests performed using the right equipment would produce a good quality signal at Suburban's headend. DISCUSSION 5. We will grant WFMZ-TV's petition. According to 76.55(e) of the Commission's Rules, commercial television broadcast stations, such as WFMZ-TV, are entitled to carriage on cable systems located in the same Area of Dominant Influence (or "ADI"). WFMZ-TV is located in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ADI, which is also where the communities served by Suburban are located. A review of Suburban's engineering study establishes that WFMZ-TV fails to provide a good quality signal to Suburban's principal headend. However, we note that WFMZ-TV has offered to provide specialized equipment to Suburban to improve the station's signal. WFMZ-TV maintains that with the use of specialized equipment, it can provide a signal to Suburban's headend that is consistent with Commission criteria. Moreover, WFMZ-TV has stated that it will bear the costs of installing such equipment to assure a good quality signal. The Commission has stated that amplifiers and other equipment may be employed to deliver a good quality signal to a cable system headend. The Commission, in the Must Carry Clarification Order, after re-emphasizing that it was the television station's obligation to bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality signal to the system's principal headend, stated: 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 . . . WFMZ-TV, by committing to provide specialized equipment, satisfies its obligation to bear the costs associated with delivering a good signal to Suburban's headend. Consequently, we shall order Suburban to carry WFMZ-TV's signal in the event that WFMZ-TV provides a good quality signal employing the specialized equipment it has offered to install at Suburban's principal headend. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed December 30, 1996, by Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS GRANTED pursuant to 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (4 U.S.C. 534). Suburban Cable IS ORDERED to commence carriage of Station WFMZ-TV on its Turnersville cable system sixty (60) days from the date that WFMZ-TV provides a good quality signal at Suburban's Turnersville system's principal headend. WFMZ-TV shall notify Suburban Cable 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. 7. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gary M. Laden, Chief Consumer Protection and Competition Division Cable Services Bureau