******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                  )
                                 )
Northland  Cable Properties VII,  )   File No. EB-03-AT-061
LP                                )   NAL/Acct. No. 200332480026
Operator  of  Cable  Systems  in  )   FRN: 0004-5222-98
Sandersville/                     )
Tennille, Georgia
Seattle, Washington

                      FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  December 22, 2004             Released:   December 
27, 2004

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of eight thousand dollars 
($8,000) to Northland Cable Properties VII, LP 
(``Northland''), operator of cable television systems in 
Sandersville and Tennille, Georgia (``Northland cable 
systems'') for willfully and repeatedly violating the cable 
television signal leakage standards of Sections 
76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules 
(``Rules'').1

II.    BACKGROUND

     2.   On a March 5, 2003, the Commission's Atlanta, 
Georgia Field Office (``Atlanta Office'') conducted a cable 
signal leakage inspection of Northland's cable systems.  As 
a result of that inspection, the Atlanta Office released a 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'').2   
The NAL found that that Northland's cable systems 
experienced signal leaks at 38 locations on frequency 
121.2625 MHz (which exceeded 20 microvolts per meter (�V/m) 
at a distance of at least 3 meters from each leakage), and 
that the measured leaks ranged from 84 to 931 �V/m (which at 
a calculated cumulative index of (``CLI'') of 68.9, exceeded 
the permissible cumulative signal leakage performance 
criteria of 64).  Based on these findings, the NAL proposed 
a $8,000 forfeiture against Northland for apparent willful 
and repeated violation of Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 
76.611(a)(1) of the Rules.  

     3.   In its July 2, 2003 response to the NAL,3 
Northland sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, 
arguing that the Atlanta Office's measurements were 
inaccurate, that the company undertook immediate and prompt 
remedial measures, and, finally, that the leakage problems, 
for the most part, were attributable to customers premises 
equipment and inside wiring. 

III.         DISCUSSION

     4.  The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 
1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to 
Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6  In assessing 
forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that 
we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and 
gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, 
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, 
ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may 
require.7  As discussed below, we have considered 
Northland's response to the NAL in light of these statutory 
factors and have found that cancellation of the proposed 
forfeiture amount is not warranted.  

     5.   Northland argued that the Atlanta Office's signal 
strength measurements were incorrect and ``overstated'' the 
leakage problem.8  According to Northland, its staff's 
measurements at the 38 subject locations at a distance of 10 
feet of each leakage (the approximate equivalent of 3 
meters) ranged from 15 �V/m to 400 �V/m, and resulted in a 
CLI calculation of 56.9, below the maximum 64 allowed under 
Section 76.611(a)(1).  The Commission established the cable 
signal leakage thresholds to address and control emissions 
that potentially could cause harmful interference to 
aeronautical frequencies and vital communications.9  Given 
the safety considerations involved, and the fact that 
Northland has not offered any explanation of why its 
measurements were significantly lower than the Atlanta 
Office's measurements,10 we stand by the our Office's 
measurements and findings and find no basis to cancel or 
reduce the proposed forfeiture in this regard.

     6.   Northland also argued that the NAL failed to take 
into account that it had cooperated through ``immediate 
reduction of signal power'' and ``efforts to correct any and 
all leaks.''11  The Commission ``expects'' full 
cooperation,12 and subsequent correction of violations 
observed,13 during the course of its investigations.  Such 
cooperative and subsequent remedial efforts, however, do not 
mitigate or negate past violations and do not warrant 
reduction or cancellation of a proposed forfeiture.14  
Further, we note that Northland was directed to reducer 
power by the Atlanta Office due to the potential for harmful 
interference to aeronautical frequencies.

     7.   Finally, Northland argued that ``the probable 
cause of 75% of these leaks was customer premises equipment 
and inside wiring.''  As the operator of the Georgia 
systems, Northland is charged with the responsibility of 
monitoring and correcting signal leaks ``regardless of their 
cause to ensure that their systems comply with our cable 
leakage standards which serve a critical safety purpose.''15  
We thus find that Northland's argument is unavailing, and 
that reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is 
not warranted.  

IV.    ORDERING CLAUSES

     8.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 
Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 
1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,16 Northland Cable Properties VII, 
LP IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of 
eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for its failure to comply 
with the cable signal leakage standards, in willful and 
repeated violation of Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 
76.611(a)(1) of the Rules.  

     9.   Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the 
manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 
days of the release of this Order.  If the forfeiture is not 
paid within the period specified, the case may be referred 
to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 
Section 504(a) of the Act.17  Payment of the forfeiture must 
be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order 
of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must 
include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.  
Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture 
Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications 
Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 
525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.  
Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account number 
1165259.  Requests for full payment under an installment 
plan should be sent to:  Chief, Revenue and Receivables 
Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554.18





     10.  IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of  this Order 
shall  be sent  by  First Class  and  Certified Mail  Return 
Receipt  Requested  to  Jack Dyste,  Senior  Vice  President 
Technical Service, Northland Communications Corporation, 101 
Stewart Street, Suite 700, Seattle, Washington 98101.

                              FEDERAL         COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION
                         
                              George R. Dillon 
                              Assistant  Chief,  Enforcement 
Bureau


_________________________

147 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1). 

2Northland Cable Properties VII, LP, NAL/Acct. No. 
200332480026 (Enf. Bur., Atlanta Office, released June 10, 
2003).

3See  Letter   from  Jack  Dyste,  Senior   Vice  President 
Technical Service, Northland  Communications Corporation to 
Office  of  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission 
(dated July 2, 2003) (``Response'').

447 U.S.C. � 503(b). 

547 C.F.R. � 1.80.

612 FCC  Rcd 17087  (1997), recon. denied,  15 FCC  Rcd 303 
(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').  

747 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D).

8Response at 1, Exhibit A. 

9See Callais Cablevision,  Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 1359,  1359 � 2 
(2001). 

10See  Response at  2; see  also Letters  from Jack  Dyste, 
Senior   Vice   President  Technical   Service,   Northland 
Communications  Corporation  to   Fred  L.  Boce,  District 
Director, Federal Communications Commission (dated March 27 
and  10, 2003)  (acknowledging  the  cable signal  leakages 
detected   by  the   Atlanta  Office,   and  reporting   on 
Northland's subsequent repairs).  

11Response at 2.

12See, e.g.,  Southern California  Broadcasting Co.,  6 FCC 
Rcd 4387, 4388  � 5 (1991), recon. denied, 7  FCC Rcd 3454, 
3455  � 7  (1992); MAPA  Broadcasting, L.L.C.,  17 FCC  Rcd 
10519, 10521 �� 8, 11 (Enf. Bur. 2002); SBC Communications, 
Inc.,  16 FCC  Rcd  10963,  10969 �  16  (Enf. Bur.  2001); 
California Oregon Broadcasters,  16 FCC Rcd 9281,  9281 � 3 
(CSB 2001);  Hart Telephone Co., 9  FCC Rcd 2501, 2501  � 5 
(WTB 1994). 

13See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services,  Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7891 
(2002), forfeiture  ordered, 17 FCC Rcd  21866, 21875-76 �� 
26-28 (2002); Seawest  Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC  Rcd 6099, 6099 
�7 (1994);  TCI Cablevision  of Maryland,  Inc., 7  FCC Rcd 
6013, 6014 �  8 (1992); Calvary Communications,  18 FCC Rcd 
18172, 18174 � 10 (Enf. Bur. 2003).  

14See notes 12-13 and accompanying text, supra. 

15Small  Town  Communications Partners  I  LP,  19 FCC  Rcd 
11034, 11035 � 7 (Enf. Bur. 2004).

1647 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

1747 U.S.C. � 504(a).

18See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1914.