Federal Communications Commission DA 17-711
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Ellington Broadcasting, WPRQ-LD
v.
Cable One Inc.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR-8933-M
MB Docket No. 17-58
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  July 24, 2017 Released: July 24, 2017
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Ellington Broadcasting, licensee of Low Power Television Station WPRQ-LD, 
Clarksdale, Mississippi (WPRQ-LD), has filed the above-captioned complaint against Cable One Inc.
(Cable One) for its refusal to carry WPRQ-LD on it cable system serving Cleveland, Mississippi.
1
  Cable 
One filed an opposition to the complaint, to which WPRQ-LD filed a reply.
2
  Issues with Cable One’s 
signal quality testing resulted in the Bureau sending Cable One a letter seeking clarification of certain 
facts.
3
  Cable One then filed a Clarification letter, to which WPRQ-LD filed a response.
4
  For the reasons 
discussed below, we provisionally grant WPRQ-LD’s carriage.  However, we will provide Cable One the 
opportunity to provide conclusive evidence in accordance with the good engineering practices discussed 
herein within 20 days of the release of this Order that WPRQ-LD does not provide a good quality signal 
to Cable One’s Cleveland headend.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Both the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission’s rules require 
the carriage of “qualified” low power television (LPTV) stations in certain limited circumstances.
5
  An 
LPTV station that conforms to the rules established for LPTV stations in Part 74 of the Commission’s 
rules will be considered “qualified” if: (1) it broadcasts at least the minimum number of hours required 
pursuant to 47 C.F.R. part 73; (2) it adheres to Commission requirements regarding non-entertainment 
                                                     
1
Ellington Broadcast Complaint, filed March 28, 2017 (Complaint).
2
Opposition of Cable One, filed April 21, 2017 (Opposition); Reply of WPRQ-LD, filed May 1, 2017 (Reply).
3
See Letter from Steven A. Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, FCC Media Bureau, to David 
Ellington, Ellington Broadcasting, and Craig A. Gilley, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. (May 
23, 2017 Letter).
4
Cable One Inc. Clarification Letter, filed June 2, 2017 (Clarification Letter); Reply of WPRQ-LD to Clarification 
Letter, filed June 12, 2017 (Clarification Letter Reply).  The Media Bureau’s May 23, 2017 Letter indicated that it 
would allow a reply from WPRQ-LD if it deemed necessary.
5
47 U.S.C. § 534(c)(1); 47 CFR §76.56(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-711
2
programming and employment practices, and the Commission determines that the programming of the 
LPTV station addresses local news and informational needs that are not being adequately served by full 
power television broadcast stations because of the geographic distance of such full power stations from 
the low power station’s community of license; (3) it complies with interference regulations consistent 
with its secondary status; (4) it is located no more than 35 miles from the cable system’s principal 
headend and delivers to the headend an over-the-air signal of good quality; (5) the community of license 
of the station and the franchise area of the cable system were both located outside the largest 160 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas on June 30, 1990, and the population of such community of license on that 
date did not exceed 35,000; and (6) there is no full power television broadcast station licensed to any 
community within the county or other political subdivision (of a State) served by the cable system.
6
III. DISCUSSION
3. We begin our analysis by noting that the Commission does not have the authority to 
waive the rules that have been statutorily promulgated by Congress with respect to what factors define a 
“qualified” low power station.
7
  The Commission must enforce the statute as drafted.
8
  As outlined above, 
Congress has identified six factors that determine whether a low power station is “qualified” and therefore 
entitled to mandatory carriage rights.
9
  Because a low power television station must meet each of the six 
criteria required by the Act and the Commission’s rules, its failure to meet just one is fatal to its request 
for mandatory carriage.
10
4. In its Complaint, WPRQ-LD claims that it is a qualified LPTV station, and seeks 
mandatory carriage on Cable One’s Cleveland, Mississippi cable system.
11
  WPRQ-LD filed a formal 
request for cable carriage with Cable One on January 17, 2017.
12
  However, Cable One did not reply to 
WPRQ-LD’s carriage request.
13
  WPRQ-LD argues that its carriage demand letter to Cable One 
established that it met all six requirements as required under the Communication’s Act for mandatory 
carriage.
14
  
5. In Opposition, Cable One asserts that it opposes WPRQ-LD’s request for carriage on 
Cable One’s Cleveland system because WPRQ-LD fails to provide a good quality signal to the system’s 
principal headend.
15
  Cable One states that the “communities served by the Cleveland System are served 
by a principal headend located in the nearby community of Clarksdale, Mississippi.
16
  To support its 
contention, Cable One provided signal tests that it conducted of WPRQ-LD.
17
  On January 30, 2017, 
Cable One had a signal strength test conducted of WPRQ-LD’s signal in Clarksdale.
18
On April 11, 2017, 
                                                     
6
47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(2); 47 CFR § 76.55(d).
7
See 47 U.S.C. §534(h)(2)(A)-(F).
8
See Continental Broad. Corp. v. Jones Intercable, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2550, 2551, ¶ 8 (CSB 1994).
9
See 47 USC § 5334(h)(2)(A)-F; 47 CFR § 76.55(d)(1)-(6)
10
See Continental Broad. Corp. v. Jones Intercable, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2551, ¶ 7.
11
Complaint at 1.
12
See id.
13
See id.
14
Id. Attach 2.
15
Opposition at 1.
16
See id. at 2.
17
See id. Exhibits.
18
Id. Exhibit 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-711
3
Cable One had a signal strength test conducted of WPRQ-LD’s signal in Cleveland.
19
  According to these 
tests, WPRQ-LD’s signal strength readings were between -80.4 and -93.9 dBm, well below the -61 dBm 
threshold.
20
  Based upon these results, Cable One asserts that the signal quality tests establish that WPRQ-
LD “is unable to deliver any viewable picture at all to the Clarksdale, MS headend.”
21
  Cable One asserts 
that this failure disqualifies the Station from mandatory carriage on Cable One’s Cleveland cable
system.
22
6. In Reply, WPRQ-LD argues that Cable One has provided conflicting information 
regarding the location of the Cleveland System’s principal headend.
23
  Cable One’s general manager 
informed WPRQ-LD that the principal headend is in Cleveland.
24
  However, Cable One’s Opposition 
states that the principal headend is in Clarksdale.
25
  Moreover, Cable One contradicts this assertion in its 
Clarification Letter stating that the Cleveland System’s principal headend is located in Cleveland.
26
  
WPRQ-LD believes that the principal headend information is material because WPRQ-LD is located and 
licensed in Clarksdale.
27
  WPRQ-LD states that its transmit antenna is only 3.55 miles to the southeast of 
Cable One’s principal receive tower in Clarksdale.
28
  In addition, WPRQ-LD has been carried on Cable 
One’s Clarksdale system for twenty years.
29
  Thus, if Cable One’s Cleveland System is actually located in 
Clarksdale, WPRQ-LD does not understand how Cable One can assert that it fails to provide a good 
quality signal when it has been doing so for over twenty years.            
7. WPRQ-LD also questions Cable One’s signal testing.  WPRQ-LD asserts that the signal 
testing done at the Clarksdale headend is invalid because it is not based on good engineering practices for 
measuring a good quality signal.
30
  In particular, WPRQ-LD indicates that Cable One positioned the 
antenna to face northeast, even though WPRQ-LD’s transmitting antenna is 3.55 miles southeast of Cable 
One’s Clarksdale headend.
31
  WPRQ-LD also questions the make and model of the testing antenna Cable 
One used as well as Cable One’s inability to receive WPRQ-LD’s signal.
32
  The test contains a diagram 
sketch for the Cleveland headend even though it was conducted at Clarksdale.
33
  Furthermore, WPRQ-LD 
questions the utility of the signal test done at the Cleveland headend because Cable One has asserted that 
Cleveland is not a principal headend.
34
  In addition, WPRQ-LD argues the Cleveland headend test should 
                                                     
19
Id. Exhibit 2.
20
Id. at 2.
21
Id. (emphasis added).
22
Id. (emphasis added).
23
WPRQ-LD has alleged that Cable One filed its opposition late.  However, the Media Bureau’s Public Notice for 
WPRQ-LD’s Complaint was not issued until April 20, 2017.  Thus, Cable One’s opposition was timely filed.
24
Reply at 2.
25
Id. 
26
Clarification Letter at 2.
27
Reply at 2.
28
Id. 
29
Id. at 3-4.  WPRQ-LD, channel 12, is listed on Cable One’s Clarksdale Cable System as a local channel. See
http://www.cableone.net/LI/Pages/localchannellineup.aspx?cmd=map&m=15.
30
Reply at 3-5.
31
Id. at 3.
32
Id. at 3-4.
33
Id. 
34
Id. at 5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-711
4
be dismissed for the lack of good engineering practices in conducting the test.
35
  WPRQ-LD indicates that
one of its employees attended the Cleveland test, and during the test, Cable One used a damaged, low 
gain single VHF antenna in poor condition with a splitter connected to it and did not orient the antenna to 
receive WPRQ-LD.
36
  Thus, WPRQ-LD asserts Cable One’s tests of WPRQ-LD’s signal cannot be 
trusted as accurate.
37
8. After reviewing the pleadings, we determined that Cable One’s signal testing for WPRQ-
LD in both Cleveland and Clarksdale had created substantial confusion as reflected in WPRQ-LD’s 
Reply. As a result, on May 23, 2017, the Media Bureau sent a Letter to the parties seeking clarification 
from Cable One about “where and why the signal tests were conducted…”
38
  Specifically, the Bureau
asked Cable One to clarify why it conducted a signal test in Clarksdale when WPRQ-LD sought carriage 
in Cleveland.
39
  Additionally, the letter sought clarification from Cable One as to the location of its 
principal headend.
40
  
9. In response to our Letter, Cable One filed a Clarification Letter that reiterated their 
opposition to carriage of WPRQ-LD based on its failure to “deliver an over-the-air good quality signal to 
the requested system’s designated principal headend[ ]….”
41
  Cable One states that the “[Cleveland] cable 
system’s designated principal headend, where all of the other off-air broadcast stations carried by the 
system are received for retransmission, is located near the system’s main office in Cleveland[, 
Mississippi].”
42
  However, Cable One did not rebut WPRQ-LD’s allegations or clarify the issues as 
requested in our May 23, 2017 Letter.  Rather, Cable One submitted new signal tests of WPRQ-LD’s 
signal from Cleveland that were conducted on May 23, 2017.
43
  According to Cable One, this new test 
was conducted using a “high gain VHF/UVF diamond antenna oriented northeast directly at WPRQ-LD’s 
transmitter….”
44
  Cable One goes on to conclude that these tests produced results between -123.45 dBm 
and -127.05 dBm, well below the Commission’s -61 dBm threshold for a good quality signal, rendering
WPRQ-LD ineligible for “mandatory carriage on the Cleveland system.”
45
10. WPRQ-LD filed a reply to Cable One’s Clarification Letter arguing that Cable One’s 
Clarification Letter failed to address “the questionable data and comments made during their initial signal 
tests” and “merely claims to have performed [a] new signal test[ ].”
46
  According to WPRQ-LD, Cable 
One did not contact them regarding the new signal test.
47
  WPRQ-LD also asserts that these new tests do 
not follow good engineering practices as required by the Commission.
48
  WPRQ-LD notes that the tests 
are dated May 23, the same day the Bureau sent the Letter requesting clarification, so it is doubtful that 
                                                     
35
Id. at 5-8.
36
Id. at 6; Opposition Exhibit 4.
37
Id. at 8.
38
May 23, 2017 Letter at 2.
39
Id. at 1.
40
Id. at 1-2.
41
Clarification Letter at 1.
42
Id. at 2.
43
Id. at 2; Clarification Exhibit 1.
44
Id.
45
Id..
46
Clarification Letter Reply at 1.
47
Id. at 2
48
Id. at 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-711
5
these tests were made in response to the Letter.
49
  WPRQ-LD also questions the quality of the testing. For 
example, Cable One stated in their Clarification Letter that the signal test was conducted using a “high 
gain VHF/UHF diamond antenna.”
50
  However, WPRQ-LD contends that this statement is false because 
Cable One’s form for the new signal test listed a consumer grade “Mediasonic HOMEWORX HDTV  
Outdoor Antenna” as the antenna used for signal testing.
51
  According to WPRQ-LD, this is a very low
grade, 3 Db, gain antenna made for consumer home use, and can be purchased at Walmart for $24.99.
52
  
WPRQ-LD also questions Cable One’s assertion that the antenna used for testing was installed in 1994, 
because there was no “HDTV” broadcast signals in the United States before 1994.
53
  Thus, WPRQ-LD 
concludes it is impossible that a consumer home HDTV antenna was installed in 1994 on the cable 
television receive tower.
54
  WPRQ-LD also states that a visual inspection of Cable One’s Cleveland tower 
indicates that no “Mediasonic HOMEWORZ HDTV” antenna is even currently installed.
55
  Further, 
WPRQ-LD argues that not only is Cable One’s signal testing of WPRQ-LD inconsistent with 
Commission standards, Cable One has not afforded WPRQ-LD the same treatment as other stations 
received at their headend site.
56
  According to WPRQ-LD, Cable One’s Cleveland tower contains three 
VHF diamond quad array antennas for receiving VHF broadcast stations.
57
  WPRQ-LD asserts that Cable 
One affords other stations the use of these antennas, as opposed to the Mediasonic HDTV consumer 
antenna used by Cable One in WPRQ-LD signal testing.
58
  Consequently, WPRQ-LD concludes Cable
One has once again failed to provide signal tests for WPRQ-LD that comply with the Commission’s 
standards for good engineering, because of their questionable data, improper antenna equipment, and 
testing methods.
59
  As such, WPRQ-LD requests that the Commission grant carriage to WPRQ-LD on 
Cable One’s Cleveland cable system.
60
  Additionally, WPRQ-LD requests the Commission require Cable 
One to provide similar treatment to WPRQ-LD as other stations on their Cleveland tower, and provide 
WPRQ-LD with a new high gain VHF diamond quad array antenna precisely peaked to receive WPRQ-
LD along with a new coaxial cable.
61
  WPRQ-LD also states that it is carried by three cable systems in the 
Mississippi Delta region, and it provides an “over the air signal of good quality to all the cable systems.”
62
  
11. We will provisionally grant WPRQ-LD’s petition. WPRQ-LD’s complaint was timely 
filed pursuant to section 76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission’s rules within 60 days of Cable One’s refusal 
of carriage.
63
Additionally, there appears to be no disagreement between the parties that WPRQ-LD 
                                                     
49
Id. at 2.
50
Id.; Clarification Letter at 2.
51
Clarification Letter Reply at 2; Clarification Letter Exhibit 1.
52
Clarification Letter Reply at 2; Clarification Letter Reply Exhibit 2.
53
Clarification Letter Reply at 3.
54
Id.
55
Id.
56
Id. at 4-5
57
Id. at 4; Clarification Letter Reply Exhibit 4.
58
Clarification Letter Reply at 5.
59
Id. at 2-3.
60
Id. at 6.
61
Id.
62
Id. at 3.  For example, WPRQ-LD provides an over-the-air signal to Suddenlink Communications in Helena-West, 
which is 26 miles away from WPRQ-LD’s transmitter.
63
47 CFR § 76.7(c)(4)(iii).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-711
6
satisfies five of the six requirements set forth in the Commission’s rules to be considered a qualified 
LPTV station.
64
The parties’ only dispute is over WPRQ-LD’s ability to provide a good quality signal to 
Cable One’s Cleveland principal headend. We are not persuaded by Cable One’s Clarification Letter, or 
additional test of WPRQ-LD’s signal at the Cleveland headend that WPRQ-LD has failed to produce a 
good quality signal. Even after a request for clarification, Cable One still appears to fail to comply with 
the Commission’s standards for good engineering.  In their Clarification Letter, Cable One indicates that 
because WPRQ-LD alleged numerous defects in the April 11 test, rather than rebutting those allegations, 
Cable One retested “WPRQ-LD’s signal at the Cleveland headend on May 23, 2017, using different 
equipment [and] new parameters in line with correcting for Ellington’s technical complaints…The results 
of this test, reported on the test report attached hereto as Exhibit 1, were exactly the same, no good quality 
over-the-air signal received at the headend. Indeed, receive levels for the station’s signal came in 
between -123.45 dBm and -127.05 dBm, again well below the Commission’s -61 dBm threshold for a 
good quality signal, indicating no viewable signal whatsoever, and disqualifying the station from 
mandatory carriage on the Cleveland system.”
65
12. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act)
66
provides that a cable operator 
is not required to carry a local commercial television station that does not deliver a good quality signal to 
the principal headend of a cable system.
67
  With respect to the standard to be used to determine what 
constitutes a good quality signal, the Commission adopted a standard for determining the availability of 
VHF and UHF commercial stations at a cable system's headend.  For VHF commercial television stations, 
the standard is -49 dBm, and for UHF commercial television stations, the standard is -45 dBm.
68
  
Generally, if the test results are less than -51 dBm for a UHF station, we have said that at least four 
readings must be taken over a two-hour period.
69
  Where the initial readings are between -51 dBm and -45 
dBm, inclusive, we believe that the readings should be taken over a 24-hour period with measurements 
not more than four hours apart to establish reliable test results.
70
13. Because the cable operator is in the best position to know whether a given low power 
television station is providing a good quality signal to the system’s principal headend, the initial burden of 
demonstrating the lack of a good quality signal falls on the cable operator. In meeting this burden, the 
cable operator must show that it used good engineering practices to measure the signal delivered to the 
headend. To measure a station’s signal to see if it meets the Commission’s requirements, a cable 
operator’s signal strength surveys should, at a minimum, include the following: 1) specific make and 
model numbers of the equipment used, as well as its age and most recent date(s) of calibration; 2) 
description(s) of the characteristics of the equipment used, such as antenna ranges and radiation patterns; 
3) height of the antenna above ground level and whether the antenna was properly oriented; and 4) 
weather conditions and time of day when tests were done.
71
14. Although Cable One makes a broad statement in their Clarification Letter that they 
oppose WPRQ-LD’s signal carriage on their Cleveland headend because of poor signal quality, they fail 
                                                     
64
47 CFR § 76.55(d).
65
Clarification Letter at 2.
66
47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(2)(D).
67
47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(B)(iii)
68
47 CFR § 76.55 note to paragraph (d); In re: Complaint of Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. against 
Suburban Cable, 12 FCC Rcd 22930 (1997).
69
Complaint of Maranatha Broadcasting, 12 FCC Rcd at 22933, para 6.
70
Id.
71
Id. at 22933, para 7. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-711
7
to support this allegation in their presentation and analysis of the relevant signal test results.
72
  In our 
review, we note that in their first opposition, Cable One’s signal test of WPRQ-LD in Cleveland failed to 
include the make and model of the equipment used, its age, and its most recent date of calibration. After 
obtaining a second chance to correct such deficiencies in their Clarification Letter, Cable One still failed 
to include the most recent date of calibration of the equipment used in its tests.
73
  We also note that the 
antenna used by Cable One for WPRQ-LD’s second signal test in Cleveland was a consumer grade 
“Mediasonic HOMEWORX HDTV Outdoor Antenna,” as opposed to one of the VHF diamond quad 
array antennas installed on Cable One’s Cleveland receive tower. When measured against our criteria, we 
conclude that the testing conducted by Cable One is insufficient to demonstrate that WPRQ-LD’s signal 
is not of “good-quality” at its system headend. Accordingly, we provisionally grant WPRQ-LD’s carriage 
complaint. However, because there is still a possibility that WPRQ-LD does not provide a good quality 
signal to Cable One’s Cleveland headend and because a low power television station cannot use alternate 
means other than over-the-air delivery to provide a good quality signal, we provide Cable One with the 
opportunity to provide the Commission within 20 days of the release of this Order a definitive 
engineering study of WPRQ-LD’s signal quality.
74
Such engineering study will be conducted in 
accordance with the good engineering practices discussed above. Further, Cable One shall provide 
WPRQ-LD with at least three business days’ advance notice of the time and place of such signal quality 
testing and permit WPRQ-LD representatives to observe all phases of the testing if they so choose. If 
Cable One does not provide its engineering study to the Commission within twenty days, it shall 
commence carriage of WPRQ-LD on its Cleveland cable system within sixty days of the release date of 
this Order.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the petition filed March 28, 2017 by WPRQ-LD IS 
PROVISIONALLY GRANTED pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (47 U.S.C. §534), and Cable One IS ORDERED to commence carriage of Station WPRQ-LD 
within sixty (60) days of the release date of this order unless Cable One provides within twenty (20) days 
of the release date of this Order an engineering report that complies with Commission engineering 
standards that substantiates its claim of poor signal quality.
16. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the 
Commission’s rules.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division
Media Bureau
                                                     
72
Clarification Letter Exhibit 1.
73
Id.
74
See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal 
Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2991 (1993); Gary White v. City of Bardstown, KY, 26 FCC Rcd 13090, 13096, 
para 16 (MB 2011) (“Low power television stations, unlike full-power television stations, are not entitled to improve 
their signal with additional equipment.”); WMTY, Inc. v. James Cable Partners, 21 FCC Rcd 11709, para 3 (MB 
2006) (“Unlike full power commercial television broadcast stations, LPTV stations . . . are not allowed by statute or 
the Commission’s rules to cure a signal quality deficiency with additional equipment.”)