Federal Communications Commission 
In re: 
nerore the 
l•'ederal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
Complaint of Christian Faith Broadcast, Inc. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
CSR-4631-M 
Licensee of WGGN(TV) 
Sandusky, Ohio 
Against 
Ann.strong Utilities, Inc., d/b/a 
Ann.strong Cable Services 
Request for Carriage 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
DA 96-395 
Adopted: March 14, 1996 Released: April 3, 1996 
By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 
INTRODUCTION 
1. Oil November 27, 1995, Christian Faith Broadcast, Inc., ("CFB"), licensee of 
Television Broadcasting Station WOON (Channel 52), Sandusky, Ohio, filed the above-referenced 
complaint requesting that the Commission order Ann.strong Utilities, Inc., ("Armstrong") to 
commence carriage of WGGN-TV on Armstrong's cable system serving Medina (Township), 
Litchfield (Township), Butler (Township), Hayesville, Milton (Township), Montgomery 
(Township), Nanldn, Olivesburg, Orange (Township), Sullivan (Township), Troy (Township), and 
Weller (Township), Ohio, pursuant §§76.7 and 76.61 of the Commission's Rules. Ann.strong 
responded by petitioning the Commission to dismiss CFB's complaint, .with prejudice, 4ue to the 
·fact that CFB's complaint was filed past the 60-day deadline mandated by §76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the 
Commission's Rules. 
4177 
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-395 
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 
2. In support of its complaint, CFB asserts that on August 30, 1995, it formally 
requested Armstrong to cany WGGN-TV's signal on Armstrong's cable system serving the above­
referenced communities and that utilize headends located in Ashland and Medina, Ohio. CFB 
states that its request culminated months of communication with Armstrong regarding CFB's 
interest in having Armstrong cany WGGN-TV's signal. Both parties· concede that most of the 
communication between them during this period centered on the strength of WGGN-TV's signal. 
According to CFB, at issue was Armstrong's concern that measurements which it took at its 
Ashland and Medina headends indicated that WGGN-TV's signal strength reaching the headends 
was less than -45 dBm and thus did not satisfy the Commission's must-cany rules.1 CFB alleges 
that Armstrong's measurements were flawed due to the following: (1) Armstrong's failure to 
include with its measurements, the age of its measurement equipment, the date of the equipment's 
last calibration, and the orientation of the antenna with which Armstrong conducted its 
measurements; (2) Armstrong's refusal to allow CFB personnel to confirm Armstrong's 
measurements; (3) Armstrong's unwillingness to measure WGGN-TV's signal strength using 
antennas provided by CFB; (4) Armstrong's failure to factor into its measurements, WGGN-TV's 
signal loss derived from the signal's transmission from Armstrong's antennas to its headends; and 
(5) Armstrong's rejection of CFB's offer to purchase and install amplifiers at the sites of 
Armstrong's Ashland and Medina headends, between each antenna and headend, which CFB 
alleges would have boosted WGGN-TV's signal strength well above the Commission's -45 dBm 
requirement. 
3. On November 28, 1995, CFB amended its complaint by filing, along with a copy 
of its complaint, a verified affidavit and a certificate of service, both of which CFB avers were 
omitted from its earlier filing due to clerical errors. CFB further claims that a clerical error was 
also the cause of its failure to serve the interested parties with copies of the complaint until 
December 4, 1995. 
4. Rather than addressing the issue of WGGN-TV's signal strength, Armstrong 
responds by asserting that CFB's complaint should be dismissed because it was not filed within 
the time required by the Commission's Rules. Specifically, Armstrong alleges that CFB violated 
§76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's Rules by failing to file its must-cany complaint with the 
Commission within 60 days from the date of Armstrong's refusal of carriage. Armstrong 
further asserts that its letter to CFB dated August 14, 1995, constituted a refusal of carriage and 
thus CFB was required to file its complaint with the Commission by October 13, 1995. 
Alternatively, Armstrong contends that CFB's November 27, 1995,comp~aint should be dismissed 
as fatally defective because the complaint was not accompanied by a certificate of service nor 
• 
.5ee4? C.l".lt. § 76.55 (c)(3). 
4178 
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-395 
supported by an affidavit of a person or persons with knowledge of the facts. Armstrong also 
attacks CFB's amended complaint alleging that it too was defective since one of the complaints 
amendments, the certificate of service, affirmed that, as of November 28, 1995, all relevant 
parties had been served with a copy of the complaint, when in fact, Armstrong, itself, was not 
properly served until December 4, 1995. 
DISCUSSION 
5. Armstrong's contention that CFB's complaint was untimely filed is not supported 
by the Commission's Rules nor the record. Specifically, both the Commission's Rules and the 
record contradict Armstrong's claim that CFB was required to file its complaint by October 13, 
1995. While we agree that §76.7(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission's Rules did compel CFB to file 
its must-cany complaint with the Commission within 60 days of Armstrong's refusal of carriage 
letter, we cannot conclude that Armstrong's letter to CFB,2 dated August 14, 1995, constituted 
a refusal of carriage under the meaning of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to §76.61 of the 
Commission's Rules, a cable operator cannot deny a station's carriage request, in compliance with 
the must-cany guidelines, until the cable operator first receives the request in writing. The 
record reflects that, although CFB had several discussions with Armstrong regarding carriage on 
Armstrong's Ashland and Medina systems, none of these discussions qualified as a "written 
request." Rather, the record indicates that CFB did not make a written request for carriage until 
August 30, 1995.3 Thus, Armstrong's August 14, 1995, letter, dated more than two weeks prior 
to CFB's written request, cannot be considered a refusal of carriage as defined by §76.61 of the 
Commission's Rules. On the contrary, Armstrong's refusal of carriage to CFB was not made until 
September 27, 1995. Therefore, according to §76.7 of the Commission's Rules, CFB had until 
November 27, 1995, within which to file its must-cany complaint with the Commission and we 
note that CFB, did in fact, meet this deadline. 
6. The record also contradicts Armstrong's alternative contention that CFB's 
complaint should be dismissed because the requisite certificate of service and affidavit were not 
filed with the complaint by the end of CFB's filing period. Pursuant to §76.7 of the 
Commission's Rules, must-cany complaints have to be accompanied by a certificate of service 
demonstrating that each interested party was served with a copy of the complaint. Armstrong 
did receive a copy of CFB's complaint on December 4, 1995 with the service list and affidavit 
apparently attached. Moreover, while §76.7 of the Commission's Rules also require that facts 
in a complaint be supported by an affidavit of a person with actual knowledge of such facts, 
2 See Augusl 14, 1995 teller rrom ~dgar K llassler. Jr., Armstrong's Vice Presidenl/Engineering, lo Richard 
llawkins or WGGN -'l'V, Armslrong's Requesl lo Dismiss. al Exhibil A. . 
3 See Augusl 30, 1995 lellers rrom Richard llawkins lo Edgar llassler, Jr .. Cli'U Complainl, al Allachmenl 
A. 
4179 
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-395 
Arm.strong has provided no authority that would support our finding that CFB's omission of this 
affidavit from its must-carry complaint constituted a fatal defect. On the cont:ra.Iy, we note that 
CFB promptly amended its complaint, the next day, by submitting an affidavit of one of its 
employees in satisfaction of the Commission's Rules. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any 
indication that Ann.strong was materially prejudiced by CFB's error. Consequently, we will not 
dismiss CFB's complaint as untimely filed. 
7. With regard to Armstrong's refusal to use an improved antenna and amplifier at 
CFB's expense, we note that the Commission has stated that where a signal fails to meet its 
standards, it does not expect the cable operator to bear the burden of improving the signal if the 
problem results from an unsatisfactocy local television signal, but it expected the cable operator 
to cooperate with the television station in resolving the problem: 
it is the television station's obligation to bear tlre costs associated with delivering 
a good quality signal to the system's principal headend. 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, especially if the 
cable system's over-the-air reception equipment is already in place and is operating 
properly. 
(footnote omitted).4 Clearly this passage finds that where a station has been responsible for the 
cost of attempting to improve its signal at the cable system's headend, the cable operator is 
expected to cooperate with the station by using the equipment supplied by the station to improve 
its signal. Therefore, Ann.strong is required to accept CFB's offer to install, at no cost to 
Armstrong, an amplifier and an improved antenna, provided that such instruments do not 
extraordinarily burden Armstrong's cable system.5 
8. Because of Armstrong's failure to take its measurements of WGGN-TV's signal 
strength utilizing ·the additional equipment offered by CFB, we conclude that the meas~ment 
data supplied by Armstrong was not obtained in compliance with the must-carry guidelines. We 
also find that, in other respects, Armstrong's measurements do not comport with sound 
engineering principles.6 As CFB correctly asserts, the Commission has construed sound 
engineering principles so as to require Armstrong to include, with its measurements of WGGN-
4 See /lepor! and Orderin MM Dockets No. 97 259, 90 4. and 92 295. 8 l1'CC Red 2965. 2991 (1993). 
The Commission announced in ils /lepor! and Order" ... lhal cable operalors are nol required lo lake 
exlraordinary measures lo improve upon lhe qualily or signals over which lhey have no conlrol. /dal 2990. 
/leporl and Order. 8 l1'CC Red al 2990. 
4180 
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-395 
TV's signal quality, the age of the measurement equipment used and a declaration of the 
antenna's proper orientation.' However, we also find that CFB erred in asserting that Armstrong 
was required to adjust its measurements to account for WOON-TV's signal loss due to the 
signal's transmission via cable from the antenna to the headend.8 According to the Commission's 
Rules, CFB is responsible for ensuring that WOON-TV's signal overcomes any signal loss 
problems encountered prior to reaching Armstrong's headends.9 Furthermore, contrary to another 
of CFB's allegations, the record indicates that Armstrong did, in fact, provide CFB with the date 
on which measurement equipment was last calibrated.10 
ORDERING CLAUSES 
9. In view of the foregoing, we find that CFB's complaint was timely filed and that 
Armstrong has failed to adequately demonstrate that WOON-TV's signal quality at Armstrong's 
Ashland and Medina headends, does not provide the requisite signal quality to qualify for 
carnage. 
10. Accordingly, the complaint filed on November 27, 1995, as amended, by Christian 
Faith Broadcast, Inc., licensee of Television Broadcast Station WOON (Channel 52), Sandusky, 
Ohio, IS GRANTED pursuant to §614(d)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(47 U.S.C. §534), and Armstrong Utilities, Inc. d/b/a/Armstrong Cable Services IS ORDERED 
to commence carnage of WOON-TV on its cable system served by headends located at Ashland 
and Medina, Ohio, sixty (60) days from the date that WOON-TV provides the additional 
equipment, unless Armstrong submits the engineering data required herein to support its assertion 
of inadequate signal quality from WOON-TV at Armstrong's headends within fifteen (15) days 
of CFB's provision of such additional equipment. 
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the request to dismiss the complaint of Christian 
Faith Broadcaster, Inc., filed by Armstrong Utilities, Inc. d/b/a Armstrong Cable Services on 
January 11, 1996, IS DENIED pursuant to §76.7 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. §76.7). 
7 SeeCli'B Complaint al 4. 
8 SeeCli'U Complaint al 6 7. 
Supra. f oolnole 1. 
10 In its signal strength measurement reports. Armstrong indicates Lhal the signal analyzer was calibrated 
within two weeks or the dale of the signal strength measurements. SeeC!i'U Complaint al Allachmenl l.l. l!:xhibils 
A. U. 
4181 
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-395 
12. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by §0.321 of the Commission's 
Rules. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
William H. Johnson 
Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau 
4182