**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of:                | *  | CSR-5658-M                   |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Corridor Television, L.L.P.      | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| v\.                              | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Cox Cable Communications, Inc.   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| d/b/a Cox Cable Communications   | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Request for Mandatory Carriage   | ** |                              |
| of                               |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Television Station KBEJ(TV)      | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: April 23, 2003 Released: April 28, 2003**

By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:

# introduction

1.  Corridor Television L.L.P. ("Corridor"), licensee of television
    broadcast station KBEJ(TV), Fredericksburg, Texas ("KBEJ"), filed
    the above-captioned must carry complaint against Cox Cable
    Communications, Inc. d/b/a Cox Cable Communications ("Cox"),
    asserting mandatory carriage rights for KBEJ on Cox's cable systems
    serving Jarrell, Pflugerville, Georgetown and Leander, Texas and the
    surrounding areas (the "cable communities").[^1] Corridor requests
    that the Commission order Cox to commence carriage of KBEJ on
    channel 2, its over-the-air broadcast channel.[^2] Cox filed an
    opposition to which KBEJ replied. For the reasons discussed below,
    we will grant the complaint.

# background

2.  Under Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    ("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, such as KBEJ, are entitled to assert mandatory carriage
    rights on cable systems located within the station's market.[^3] A
    station's market for this purpose is its "designated market area,"
    or DMA, as defined by Nielsen Media Research.[^4] The term DMA is a
    geographic market designation that defines each television market
    exclusive of others, based on measured viewing patterns.

3.  Pursuant to the Commission's must carry rules, cable operators have
    the burden of showing that a commercial television station that is
    located in the same television market is not entitled to
    carriage.[^5] One method of doing so is for the cable operator to
    establish that a subject television station's signal, which would
    otherwise be entitled to carriage, does not provide a good quality
    signal to the cable system's principal headend.[^6] For VHF
    commercial television stations, the standard used to determine what
    constitutes a good quality signal at a cable system's headend is -49
    dBm.[^7] Should a station fail to provide the requisite over-the-air
    signal quality to a cable system's principal headend, it still may
    obtain carriage rights. Under the Commission's rules, a television
    station, at its own expense, may provide a cable operator with
    specialized equipment to improve the station's signal to an
    acceptable quality at a cable system's principal headend.[^8]

# discussion

4.  In support of its complaint, KBEJ states that it is licensed to
    Fredericksburg, Texas, which is in the Austin, Texas DMA.[^9] It
    states further that Cox's cable television systems are also located
    in the Austin, Texas DMA.[^10] KBEJ contends that because it is
    located within the same DMA as the Cox cable systems serving the
    cable communities, it is entitled to must carry status on the two
    Cox systems.[^11] KBEJ asserts that Cox did not respond in writing
    to its December 15, 2001 request for mandatory carriage in the cable
    communities within 30 days of receipt of such request as required by
    Section 76.61(a)(2) of the Commission rules.[^12] KBEJ notes that,
    in a late response, Cox denied its must carry request arguing that
    KBEJ was not entitled to mandatory carriage because KBEJ was not in
    the Austin, Texas DMA.[^13] KBEJ states that it is committed to "do
    whatever is necessary" to deliver a good quality signal to Cox.[^14]
    In opposition, Cox asserts that KBEJ does not deliver a good quality
    signal to its Georgetown, Texas headend.[^15] According to Cox, the
    signal strength tests it conducted on June 24 and 25, 2002, show
    that KBEJ signal strength at Cox's principal headends does not meet
    the -49 dBm threshold for VHF signals required by the Commission's
    rules.[^16] In addition, Cox states that carrier-to-noise ("C/N")
    measurements of 29.9 dB to 45.1 dB, taken on June 24 and 25, 2002,
    show that KBEJ's signal C/N levels fall short of the minimum
    engineering standards recommended by the National Cable Television
    Association ("NCTA").[^17] Cox asserts that KBEJ's C/N ratio is
    indicative of poor picture quality and argues that the Commission
    should consider this element in deciding the instant complaint, as
    the Commission considered a station's poor signal-to-noise ratio in
    *WRNN-TV Associates Limited Partnership v. Cablevision Systems
    Corporation*.[^18] In support, Cox submits a videotape of a
    recording made on June 24, 2002, which purportedly supports Cox's
    assertions about the Station's lack of good picture quality.[^19]
    Moreover, Cox notes that KBEJ "recently attempted to reach an
    agreement by which the Station would be delivered over fiber of a
    third party," but that Cox is not a party to that agreement.[^20]

5.  In reply, KBEJ reiterates that it will pay for the cost of
    delivering a good quality signal to Cox's Georgetown system.[^21]
    KBEJ states that it arranged with another cable company to
    digitalize its signal and deliver it to Cox via fiber, but that Cox
    has not responded to that offer. [^22] KBEJ argues that Cox should
    not be allowed to impose additional must carry requirements, such as
    picture quality, that are not authorized by statute or
    regulation.[^23]

6.  In a request for an extension of time, dated May 21, 2001, Cox
    informed the Commission that it had conducted signal strength
    testing after the Station provided Cox with a new receive antenna,
    and reported that "although the \[Station's\] signal did meet the
    standards" for a good quality signal, the picture quality of KBEJ's
    signal was inadequate and did not meet the NCTA's signal-to-noise
    ratio standards.[^24] In its reply, KBEJ asserts that the May 21,
    2001 letter demonstrates that KEBJ meets the signal strength
    requirements promulgated by the Commission, and that it only needs
    to make minimum adjustments to its signal to satisfy the
    Commission's signal strength threshold.[^25]

7.  We grant KBEJ's must carry complaint conditioned upon the delivery
    of a good quality signal to Cox's principal headends in Georgetown
    and Jarrell, Texas. In doing so, we note that under the Commission's
    rules, a station's failure to provide the requisite over-the-air
    signal quality to a cable system's principal headend will not
    foreclose its carriage on the cable television system if the
    station, at its own expense, provides the cable operator with the
    specialized equipment necessary to improve the station's signal to
    an acceptable quality.[^26] We find that KBEJ has satisfied the
    criteria for carriage by agreeing to pay for the cost of delivering
    a good quality signal to Cox's Jarrell system, and to Cox's
    Georgetown system via a fiber optic link or over the air utilizing
    specialized equipment. The Commission has stated that specialized
    equipment may be employed to deliver a good quality signal to a
    cable system headend. The Commission, in its *Implementation of the
    Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
    Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues Clarification Order* ("*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... ."[^27] Further, because
    KBEJ has agreed to provide specialized equipment enabling it to
    provide a good quality signal to Cox's principal headends, we need
    not address the arguments raised in the record concerning KBEJ's C/N
    readings. In view of the above, we grant KBEJ's complaint.

8.  Concerning Corridor's channel positioning request, we find that it
    has properly requested carriage on channel 2 of Cox's systems, the
    same channel number on which KBEJ is broadcast over-the-air.
    Pursuant to the Commission's rules, cable operators must comply with
    the channel positioning requirements absent a compelling technical
    reason.[^28]

# 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 Corridor Television L.L.P. **IS GRANTED**. Cox
    Cable Communications, Inc. d/b/a Cox Cable Communications **IS
    ORDERED** to commence carriage of television station KBEJ(TV) on
    Channel 2 of its cable system serving Georgetown, Pflugerville and
    Leander, Texas and the surrounding areas within 60 days from the
    date that station KBEJ delivers a good quality signal to Cox's
    Georgetown principal headend.

10. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that Cox Cable Communications, Inc. d/b/a
    Cox Cable Communications commence carriage of television station
    KBEJ(TV) on Channel 2 of its cable system serving Jarrell, Texas and
    the surrounding areas within 60 days from the date that station KBEJ
    delivers a good quality signal to Cox's Jarrell principal headend.

11. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated pursuant to
    Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules.[^29]

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Steven A. Broeckaert

    Deputy Chief, Policy Division

    Media Bureau

[^1]: Complaint at 1.

[^2]: *Id*. at 2.

[^3]: 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2976-2977 (1993).

[^4]: Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, amended by the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides that a station's market
    shall be determined by the Commission by regulation or order using,
    where available, commercial publications that delineate television
    markets based on viewing patterns. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C).
    Section 76.55(e) of the Commission's rules requires that a
    commercial broadcast station's market be defined by Nielsen Media
    Research's DMAs. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.55(3).

[^5]: *See Must Carry Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 2991.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.55(c)(3).

[^7]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(B)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 76.55(c)(3).

[^8]: *Must Carry Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 2991.

[^9]: Complaint at 1.

[^10]: *Id.*

[^11]: *Id*.

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *Id*.

[^14]: *Id*. at 1 and Exhibit A.

[^15]: Opposition at 1. Cox states that the Georgetown, Pflugerville and
    Leander systems are integrated and served from a common headend.
    *Id*. at n.1.

[^16]: Cox states that the tests revealed readings from -56.65 dBm to
    -50.85 dBm. Opposition at 2 and Exhibit A. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.55(c)(3).

[^17]: Opposition at 5.

[^18]: 13 FCC 12654, 12661 (1998) (where the Commission considered the
    issue of poor picture quality). Opposition at 3-5.

[^19]: Opposition at Exhibit B.

[^20]: *Id*. at 3.

[^21]: Reply at 2.

[^22]: *Id*.

[^23]: *Id*.

[^24]: Extension of Time Letter dated May 21, 2001.

[^25]: Reply at 2.

[^26]: *Must Carry Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 2991; *see* *also* 47 U.S.C. §
    534(h)(1)(B)(iii).

[^27]: *Must Carry Clarification Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 4142, 4143 (1993).

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.57; *see* *Must Carry Order* at 2988.

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.