FCC Web Documents citing 76.905

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 01 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1347A1.doc
  • area. III. ANALYSIS 10. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist and must provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area. Time Warner has met this burden. 11. With regard to the first part of the LEC effective competition test, which requires that the alleged competitive service be provided by a LEC or its affiliate (or any multi-channel video programming distributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2413A1.txt
  • stems from the competing services provided by BellSouth Wireless Cable, Inc. (``BSW''), a wireless cable system operator affiliated with a local exchange carrier (``LEC''). No opposition to the petition or supplement was filed. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2860A1.txt
  • in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by Ameritech New Media, Inc. (``Ameritech''), a franchised cable operator affiliated with a local exchange carrier (``LEC''). No opposition to this petition was filed. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2861A1.txt
  • County (CUID No. FL 1055), Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: December 19, 2000 Released: December 20, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction 1. Constel Communications, L.P. (``Constel'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in unincorporated portions of Orange County and Hernando County, Florida (the ``Communities''). Constel alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Constel claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities because fewer than thirty percent of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1024A1.txt
  • Other Puerto Rico Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5644-E Adopted: April 18, 2001 Released: April 23, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction Teleponce Cable TV, Inc, (``Teleponce'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Ponce, Puerto Rico and two other franchise areas in Puerto Rico (the ``Franchise Areas''). Teleponce alleges that its cable systems serving the Franchise Areas are subject to effective competition and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Teleponce claims the presence of effective competition in the Franchise Areas because
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1355A1.txt
  • largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. NDNC has met this burden. NDNC has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that the Communities are served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs'') offering comparable service to more than 50% of the households therein. NDNC asserts that the service of direct broadcast satellite providers satisfy this requirement.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-142A1.txt
  • the channel line-up offered to subscribers in the Villages for the BST rate. Armstrong does not dispute that it has cut its rates in portions of its franchise area. It defends its action by arguing that the uniform rates requirement is inapplicable because it faces effective competition under the local exchange carrier or ``LEC'' test for effective competition in section 76.905(b)(4) of the Commission's rules. According to Armstrong, Citizens Cable, an affiliate of local exchange carrier Citizens Telephone Company, holds a franchise to construct and operate a cable system throughout the Township, offers a comparable service consisting of approximately 63 channels of service, including approximately 50 channels of nonbroadcast service, is providing this service in a portion of Armstrong's franchise area,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1731A1.txt
  • cable operations in that franchise area. The City of Boston (``Boston'') filed comments opposing Cablevision's request to which Cablevision filed a reply. Both Cablevision and Boston filed supplements to update the record. 2. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its affiliate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1750A1.txt
  • (CUID No. TX0632) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5704-E CSR 5705-E CSR 5706-E CSR 5707-E CSR 5708-E CSR 5709-E CSR 5710-E Adopted: July 19, 2001 Released: July 25, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction Marcus Cable Associates, d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter''), has filed seven separate petitions pursuant to Sections 76.905 of the Commission's rules for determinations of effective competition in seven Texas communities. Charter alleges that its cable systems serving Burleson, Keller, Mansfield, Edgecliff Village, Kennedale, Blue Mound, and North Richland Hills (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1942A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. CSR-5650-E Kearney, Missouri CUID No. MO0442 Adopted: August 14, 2001 Released: August 16, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION Kansas City Cable Partners (``KCCP'') has filed a Petition for Special Relief seeking a determination of effective competition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules. KCCP asserts that its cable television system serving the City of Kearney, Missouri is subject to local exchange carrier (``LEC'') effective competition because of the presence of ExOp Missouri, Inc.'s (``ExOp'') cable services in Kearney. The petition is unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is granted. BACKGROUND Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1947A1.txt
  • largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. Cable USA has met this burden. Cable USA has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that the Communities are served by at least two unaffiliated MVPDs offering comparable service to more than 50% of the households therein. Cable USA asserts that the service of direct broadcast satellite providers such as DIRECTV and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2439A1.txt
  • City Cable Partners Petition For Determination of Effective Competition ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5711-E Lenexa, Kansas CUID No. KS0087 Adopted: October 17, 2001 Released: October 19, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION Kansas City Cable Partners (``KCCP'') has filed a Petition for Special Relief seeking a determination of effective competition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules. KCCP asserts that it is subject to local exchange carrier (``LEC'') effective competition in Lenexa, Kansas because of the presence of Everest Connections Corporation (``ECC'') cable services in that community. Everest submitted a late-filed pleading opposing Time Warner's request. Time Warner filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is granted. BACKGROUND
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-289A1.txt
  • ANALYSIS 7. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that such effective competition does not exist and so must provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area. Rifkin has met this burden. 8. With regard to the first part of the LEC effective competition test, which requires that the alleged competitive service be provided by a LEC or its affiliate (or any multi-channel video programming distributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate), we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-305A1.txt
  • each of the Communities. WTC filed an opposition to Time Warner's request, as did the Ohio cities of Piqua, Sidney, and St. Marys. Time Warner replied to each of the opponents' arguments. 2. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-308A1.txt
  • in Pasco County, Florida (CUID Nos. FL1175, FL1243) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5592-E Adopted: February 2, 2001 Released: February 8, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION Constel Communications, L.P. (``Constel'') has filed a petition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Communications Act'') and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, seeking a determination of effective competition regarding unincorporated areas of Pasco County, Florida (the ``Community Units''). Constel argues that its cable systems are subject to effective competition for all purposes, including but not limited to, exemption from the cable/SMATV cross-ownership prohibition as set forth in Section 613(a)(3) of the Communications Act and Section 76.501(f) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-313A1.txt
  • (``MVPDs''). TCP seeks revocation of the certification of the City of Houston to regulate TCP's basic cable rates. No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if any one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-340A1.txt
  • broadcasting signals. 7. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that such effective competition does not exist and must provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area. Time Warner has met this burden. 8. With regard to the first part of the LEC effective competition test, which requires that the alleged competitive service be provided by a LEC or its affiliate (or any multi-channel video programming distributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-345A1.txt
  • rates. Time Warner states that, regardless of its request for modification, it will remain bound by all other applicable provisions of the Social Contract, including the infrastructure upgrade requirement. A. Effective Competition 8. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. In the instant case, Time Warner seeks to demonstrate that it is subject to competing provider effective competition as a result of WBS' wireless cable service and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-510A1.txt
  • franchising authorities (``LFAs'') to regulate TCP's basic cable rates. An opposition to the petition was filed on behalf of the LFAs, to which TCP replied. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if any one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-536A1.txt
  • Waco stems from the competing services provided by ClearSource, Inc. (``ClearSource''), a franchised cable operator that also the provides local exchange carrier (``LEC'') service in Waco. No opposition to this petition was filed. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-553A1.txt
  • the ``low penetration'' effective competition test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(A) of the Act. No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-571A1.txt
  • of the Communities. The Vermont Department of Public Service and the Vermont Public Service Board filed letters stating they do not oppose the request for relief. No opposition to the petition was filed. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if the franchise area is (a) served by at least two unaffiliated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-808A1.txt
  • Ohio CUID No. OH0522 Westerville, Ohio CUID No. OH0517 Bexley, Ohio CUID No. OH0512 Obetz, Ohio Adopted: March 29, 2001 Released: April 2, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Communications (``Time Warner'') has filed a Petition for Special Relief seeking a determination of effective competition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules. Time Warner asserts that it is subject to local exchange carrier (``LEC'') effective competition in the above-noted community units (the ``Communities'') because of the presence of Ameritech New Media, Inc.'s (``Ameritech'') cable services in those Communities. Time Warner also requests that the Commission revoke the certification of the City of Westerville, Ohio to regulate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-882A1.txt
  • largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. Cable USA has met this burden. Cable USA has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that the Communities are served by at least two unaffiliated MVPDs offering comparable service to more than 50% of the households therein. Cable USA asserts that the service of direct broadcast satellite providers such as DIRECTV and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-130A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in Northport, Alabama ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5777-E Adopted: January 16, 2002 Released: January 17, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction Charter Communications, L.L.C. (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Northport, Alabama (the ``Franchise Area''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the Franchise Area because fewer than thirty percent of the households subscribe to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1619A1.txt
  • in Vernon Township under the ``low penetration'' effective competition test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(A) of the Act. No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-175A1.txt
  • in Monroe, Michigan ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5811-E Adopted: January 22, 2002 Released: January 24, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction CC Michigan, L.L.C. d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Monroe, Michigan (the ``Franchise Area''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the Franchise Area because fewer than thirty percent of the households subscribe to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-176A1.txt
  • Competition in Petersburg, Michigan ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5806-E Adopted: January 22, 2002 Released: January 24, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction CC: Michigan L.L.C., d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Petersburg, Michigan (the ``Franchise Area''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the Franchise Area because fewer than thirty percent of the households subscribe to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-177A1.txt
  • Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5800-E Adopted: January 22, 2002 Released: January 24, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction 1. The Helicon Group, L.P. d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the cities of Cabot, Calais, East Montpelier, Marshfield, Plainfield, Woodbury, and Worchester, Vermont (the ``Franchise Area''). Charter alleges that its cable systems serving the Franchise Area are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the Franchise Area
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1919A1.txt
  • a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in the fourteen franchise areas in Texas listed in Attachment A (collectively, the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its' cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certifications of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic service rates. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and a SMATV operator, TVMAX, Inc. No opposition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2093A1.txt
  • (``Fibervision'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Fibervision is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in Laurel and Park City, Montana (the ``Communities''). Fibervision alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Fibervision bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2166A1.txt
  • Falcon First, Inc., d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter''), has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Athens, Alabama. Charter alleges that its cable system serving Athens is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Athens to regulate basic service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Athens stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2167A1.txt
  • filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition with respect to certain communities in Vermont (collectively, the ``CPG''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the CPG is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the Vermont Public Service Board to regulate basic service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the CPG stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2168A1.txt
  • filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition with respect to certain communities in Vermont (collectively, the ``CPG''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the CPG is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the Vermont Public Service Board to regulate basic service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the CPG stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2169A1.txt
  • Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Rockwall, Texas. Charter alleges that its cable system serving Rockwall is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Rockwall to regulate basic service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Rockwall stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2170A1.txt
  • Charter Communications, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Decaturville, Tennessee. Charter alleges that its cable system serving Decaturville is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Decaturville to regulate basic service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Decaturville stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2171A1.txt
  • Charter Communications, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Murray, Kentucky. Charter alleges that its cable system serving Murray is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Murray to regulate basic service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Murray stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and a cable overbuilder, Murray Electric System (``MES''). No
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2172A1.txt
  • Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in the City of Marshall, Minnesota (``Marshall''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving Marshall is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Marshall to regulate basic service rates. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and an overbuilder, McLeod USA. No opposition to the petition was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2174A1.txt
  • LLC d/b/a Charter Communications, Inc. (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in Denton, Texas (``Denton''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving Denton is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Denton to regulate basic service rates. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and a SMATV operator, TVMAX, Inc. Denton filed an opposition, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2175A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a WEHCO Video, Inc. (``WEHCO'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that WEHCO is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in Longview, Texas (``Longview''). WEHCO alleges that its cable system serving Longview is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Longview to regulate basic service rates. WEHCO bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2176A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a WEHCO Video, Inc. (``WEHCO'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that WEHCO is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in Vicksburg, Mississippi (``Vicksburg''). WEHCO alleges that its cable system serving Vicksburg is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. WEHCO bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2177A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a WEHCO Video, Inc. (``WEHCO'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that WEHCO is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in Kilgore, Texas (``Kilgore''). WEHCO alleges that its cable system serving Kilgore is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Kilgore to regulate basic service rates. WEHCO bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2293A1.txt
  • Video Electronics, Inc. d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Hayward, Wisconsin. Charter alleges that its cable system serving Hayward is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Hayward to regulate basic service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Hayward stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and a local exchange company (``LEC'') overbuilder, Chequamegon Telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2294A1.txt
  • a franchised cable operator that also provides local exchange carrier (``LEC'') service in the Communities. Qwest and certain of the Communities filed comments in response to the Petition. Cox replied to Qwest's comments. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2296A1.txt
  • stems from the competing services provided by ClearSource, Inc. (``ClearSource''), a franchised cable operator that also provides local exchange carrier (LEC) service in the Cities. No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Based on the record in this proceeding, Time Warner has met this burden. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2316A1.txt
  • is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in Allamuchy Township, Montague Township and the Layton and Branchville portions of Sandyston Township, New Jersey (collectively, the ``Communities''). Cablevision alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities' Office of Cable Television (``OCTV'') to regulate basic service rates. Cablevision bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). The New Jersey Division of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2324A1.txt
  • filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in Coldwater Township and Coldwater City, Michigan (collectively, the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its' cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certifications of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic service rates. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and a public utility overbuilder, the Coldwater Board of Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2325A1.txt
  • the Commission a petition alleging that its cable systems are subject to effective competition from competing service providers in its Altavista, Hurt, and unincorporated Pittsylvania County, Virginia franchise areas (the ``communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems are subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Adelphia bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the petition was filed. Discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2326A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5870-E Adopted: September 18, 2002 Released: September 20, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Horry Telephone Cablevision (``Horry'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in its Horry County, South Carolina franchise area (the ``county''). Horry alleges that its cable system serving the county is subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Horry claims the presence of effective competition because of the competing services offered by Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2391A1.txt
  • Adelphia's cable system is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in the City of Arcadia, California (``Arcadia'') and requests revocation of Arcadia's certification to regulate basic cable service rates. Adelphia alleges that its' cable system is subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Adelphia bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2424A1.txt
  • (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in ten communities in Wisconsin (collectively, the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its' cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certifications to regulate basic cable service rates of the local franchising authorities in the Communities. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2425A1.txt
  • Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Time Warner is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in its Cape Coral, Florida franchise area. Time Warner alleges that its' cable system is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Time Warner bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2441A1.txt
  • Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in its Morgan Hill, King City, Hollister, Gilroy, San Juan Bautista, and Norco, California franchise areas (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2480A1.txt
  • Commission a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in its Jefferson, Marshall, Hallsville, Atlanta, and Rockwall, Texas franchise areas (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2488A1.txt
  • Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Time Warner is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in its Live Oak, Florida franchise area. Time Warner alleges that its' cable system is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Time Warner bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). The City of Live Oak filed an opposition to which Time Warner replied. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2634A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'') a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the two above-captioned communities in Arkansas (the ``Communities''). WEHCO alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. WEHCO claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2693A1.txt
  • rates of Cablevision Systems of Connecticut, L.P. in ten communities and Cablevision Systems of Southern Connecticut, L.P. (collectively, ``Cablevision'') in six communities in Connecticut. The DPUC alleges that Cablevision's cable systems serving these sixteen communities (the ``Communities'') are no longer subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, and seeks recertification to regulate basic service rates. The DPUC bases its allegation on the discontinuation of competing services provided by a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') overbuilder, SNET Personal Vision, Inc. (``SNET''). Cablevision filed comments in response to the DPUC's petition. background In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2842A1.txt
  • the competing services provided by Wood County Telephone Company (``WCTC''), a franchised cable operator that also the provides local exchange carrier (``LEC'') service in Wisconsin Rapids. No opposition to this petition was filed. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2945A1.txt
  • (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in eleven communities in New York (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(1)-(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in seven of the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). Within the remaining four
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2946A1.txt
  • Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in sixteen communities in Missouri (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(1)-(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certifications of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in fifteen of the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). Within the Village of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2947A1.txt
  • has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the five above-captioned communities in Texas (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2953A1.txt
  • filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the three above-captioned communities in Texas (the ``Communities''). Time Warner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in the City of Wichita Falls, the only city certified to regulate basic cable service rates. Time Warner claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2977A1.txt
  • Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in seven communities in Kentucky (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(1)-(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certifications of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in six of the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). Within unincorporated Knox County,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2982A1.txt
  • has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the eleven above-captioned communities in Arizona (the ``Communities''). Cox alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Cox claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and a cable overbuilder, CableAmerica Corporation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2986A1.txt
  • Revocation of Certification and Determination of Effective Competition in Colorado Springs, Colorado (CO0030) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5884-E Adopted: November 1, 2002 Released: November 5, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Century Colorado Springs Partnership d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for revocation of the certification of the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado to regulate basic cable service rates due to the presence of effective competition. Adelphia alleges that its cable system serving Colorado Springs is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3012A1.txt
  • Communications, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Hopkinsville, Kentucky (``Hopkinsville''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving Hopkinsville is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Hopkinsville to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Hopkinsville stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3079A1.txt
  • Associates, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Duncanville, Texas (``Duncanville''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving Duncanville is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Duncanville to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Duncanville stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3093A1.txt
  • Competition in Mount Orab, Ohio ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5863-E Adopted: November 7, 2002 Released: November 12, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Thompson Cable Vision Company (``Thompson'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Mount Orab, Ohio (the ``Franchise Area''). Thompson alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Thompson claims the presence of effective competition in the Franchise Area because fewer than thirty percent of the households subscribe
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3140A1.txt
  • has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the four above-captioned communities in Texas (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). The City of Port Aransas filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3172A1.txt
  • Adelphia operates its Arcadia system through a subsidiary, Century-TCI California, L.P., in which Adelphia acquired a controlling interest in 1999. 47 U.S.C. § 543(d); 47 C.F.R. § 76.984. Because we dispose of Altrio's complaint on other grounds, we need not determine whether or not to accept the additional submissions. 47 U.S.C. § 543(d). 47 U.S.C. § 543(l); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905. 47 U.S.C. § 543(d); 47 C.F.R. § 76.984. See e.g., American Cable Company and Jay Copeland v. Telecable of Columbus, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 10090 (1996); Cross Country Cable, Inc., v. C-TEC Cable Systems of Michigan, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 2538 (1997). Altrio Complaint at 2. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at 4. Altrio points out that examples of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3192A1.txt
  • Adopted: November 15, 2002 Released: November 19, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., and Cablevision Industries of Central Florida (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in thirteen communities in Florida (the ``Communities''). Time Warner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Time Warner alleges that its cable systems serving twelve Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3224A1.txt
  • L.P. (``Time Warner'') filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Wadsworth, Ohio (``Wadsworth'' or the ``City''). Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving Wadsworth is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(3) of the Commission's rules and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Wadsworth to regulate basic cable service rates. Time Warner claims the presence of effective competition in Wadsworth stems from the competing service provided by Wadsworth Communications Network (``WCN''), a cable system operated by the City serving the residents of Wadsworth. No opposition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3237A1.txt
  • effective competition test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''). No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Based on the record in this proceeding, Hometown has met this burden. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3335A1.txt
  • has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the two above-captioned communities in Arkansas (the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(1)-(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the City of Ashdown stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). Within the City of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3336A1.txt
  • Limited Partnership d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Maumelle, Arkansas (``Maumelle''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving Maumelle is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Maumelle to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Maumelle stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3337A1.txt
  • a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in the twelve franchise areas in Michigan listed in Attachment A (collectively, the ``Communities''). Charter alleges that its' cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certifications of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). Oppositions to the petition were filed by three of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3338A1.txt
  • Bureau: introduction MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Maquoketa, Iowa (``Maquoketa''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Maquoketa is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Maquoketa to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Maquoketa stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). Maquoketa filed comments in response to the Petition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3376A1.txt
  • (``LEC'') service in Lexington. In the alternative, AT&T also claims that it is subject to effective competition in Lexington pursuant to the competing provider test. No opposition to the Petition was filed. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Based on the record in this proceeding, AT&T has met this burden. The LEC Test Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-33A1.txt
  • largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. Grand Forks has met this burden. Grand Forks has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that the Communities are served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs'') offering comparable service to more than 50% of the households therein. Grand Forks asserts that the service of direct broadcast satellite providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3465A1.txt
  • MN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5812-E Adopted: December 12, 2002 Released: December 16, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction CC VIII Operating, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Sauk Centre, Minnesota (the ``Franchise Area''). Charter alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3466A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5798-E Adopted: December 12, 2002 Released: December 16, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Falcon Cablevision, a California Limited Partnership d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Decatur, Alabama, (the ``Franchise Area''). Charter alleges that its' cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar'').
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3507A1.txt
  • filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the unincorporated portion of Tift County, Georgia (the ``Community''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving the Community are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Mediacom seeks revocation of the certification of Tift County, Georgia to regulate basic cable rates in the Community. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in the Community stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3599A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a Time Warner Cable Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Gardena, California (CA0934) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5901-E Adopted: December 13, 2002 Released: December 27, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Paragon Communications, Inc. d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition (the ``Petition'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Gardena, California (``Gardena''). Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving Gardena is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-544A1.txt
  • 20554 In the Matter of: Texas Cable Partners, L.P. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Corpus Christi, Texas (TX0205) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5676-E Adopted: March 5, 2002 Released: March 7, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: introduction Texas Cable Partners, L.P. (``TCP'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for revocation of the certification of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas to regulate basic cable service rates due to the presence of effective competition. Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving Corpus Christi is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-605A1.txt
  • Commission a petition alleging that Charter is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in two separate San Luis Obispo County, California Franchise Areas (the ``County''). Charter alleges that its' cable systems serving the County are subject to effective competition, pursuant to Section 623 (a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Charter bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. background Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if the franchise area is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-611A1.txt
  • behalf of each community, and Charter filed replies to the oppositions. Charter also submitted a supplement to each of the petitions. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-792A1.txt
  • Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in St. John the Baptist, Parish, Louisiana (CUID No. LA0151) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5728-E Adopted: March 29, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana (``The Parish''). Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving The Parish is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-793A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in Dunedin (FL0482), Oldsmar (FL0716), Safety Harbor (FL0233), and Tarpon Springs (FL0488), Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5729-E Adopted: April 1, 2002 Released: April 11, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and (4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for revocation of the certification of the Cities of Dunedin, Oldsmar, Safety Harbor, and Tarpon Springs, Florida (``The Cities'') to regulate basic cable service rates due to the presence of effective competition in The Cities. Time Warner alleges that its cable systems serving The Cities is subject to effective competition pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-794A1.txt
  • the ``low penetration'' effective competition test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(A) of the Act. No oppositions to the petitions were filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1149A1.txt
  • CSR 5888-E Adopted: April 14, 2003 Released: April 16, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Century-TCI California, L.P. and Adelphia Cablevision of San Bernardino, LLC d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in ten California communities (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). The Cities of Calimesa,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1150A1.txt
  • April 11, 2003 Released: April 16, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Century-TCI California, L.P., Adelphia California Cablevision L.L.C. and Adelphia Cablevision of Simi Valley L.L.C., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in five California communities (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate because of competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1164A1.txt
  • and Town of Tabor City, NC (NC1015) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5911-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 15, 2003 Released: April 17, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION ACC Cable Communications FL-VA, LLC, d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition, pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905 of the Commission's rules, alleging that Adelphia is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in unincorporated Columbus County, the Town of Lake Waccamaw, and the Town of Tabor City, North Carolina (the ``Communities''). Adelphia asserts that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1192A1.txt
  • (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in unincorporated Santa Rosa County, Florida (``Santa Rosa''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Santa Rosa is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Santa Rosa to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Santa Rosa stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). Santa Rosa filed an opposition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1193A1.txt
  • Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Le Mars, Iowa (``Le Mars''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Le Mars is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Le Mars to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Le Mars stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). An opposition was filed by Le
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1194A1.txt
  • Bureau: introduction MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Waukee, Iowa (``Waukee''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Waukee is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Waukee to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Waukee stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1195A1.txt
  • Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Charles City, Iowa (``Charles City''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Charles City is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Charles City to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Charles City stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1201A1.txt
  • has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the above-captioned community in Iowa (the ``Community''). Cable One alleges that its cable system serving the Community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Cable One claims the presence of effective competition in the Community stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation's DISH Network (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1564A1.txt
  • (``Denton'' or the ``City'') has filed with the Commission a petition for reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules of the Media Bureau's earlier determination that Marcus Cable Associates, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications, Inc. (``Charter'') is subject to effective competition in Denton pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules (the ``Order''). Denton contends that Charter failed to demonstrate the presence of effective competition in Denton stemming from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (collectively, the ``DBS Providers''). Charter filed an opposition to the petition, to which Denton filed a reply. Charter also filed a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1865A1.txt
  • largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. Black Hills has met this burden. Black Hills has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that the Communities are served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs'') offering comparable service to more than 50 percent of the households therein. Black Hills asserts that the service of direct broadcast satellite
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-188A1.txt
  • VIII Operating, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Winona, Minnesota. Charter alleges that its cable system serving Winona is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Winona to regulate basic cable service rates. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in Winona stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''), and a cable overbuider, Hiawatha Broadband Communications (``Hiawatha'').
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2082A1.txt
  • has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Iowa Falls, Iowa (``Iowa Falls''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Iowa Falls is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Iowa Falls to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Iowa Falls stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2083A1.txt
  • has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Fort Madison, Iowa (``Fort Madison''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Fort Madison is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Fort Madison to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Fort Madison stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2097A1.txt
  • in Chanhassen, Minnesota (CUID MN0577) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6006-E Adopted: June 25, 2003 Released: June 27, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving the City is subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). The City of Chanhassen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2102A1.txt
  • Pocatello, Idaho (CUID ID0009) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5958-E Adopted: June 26, 2003 Released: July 7, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Cable One, Inc. (``Cable One'') filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Pocatello, Idaho. Cable One alleges that its cable system serving the City is subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH'') and a wireless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2114A1.txt
  • Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition alleging that Time Warner is subject to effective competition from competing service providers in its Cary, North Carolina franchise area. Time Warner alleges that its cable system is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Time Warner bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). The Town of Cary filed an opposition to which Time Warner replied. In addition, Time Warner filed a supplement to it petition in response to a Media Bureau request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2115A1.txt
  • the Commission a petition alleging that Time Warner's cable system serving the unincorporated portions of Harrison County, West Virginia (``franchise area'') is subject to effective competition from competing service providers. Time Warner alleges that its cable system is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Time Warner bases its allegation of effective competition on the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''), and other cable providers. The Public Services Commission (``PSC'') of West Virginia filed a response to the petition. In the response, the PSC complained it was not properly served
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2172A1.txt
  • ``Time Warner'') have filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in eight Wisconsin communities (the ``Communities''). Time Warner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the City of Brookfield and the City of Mequon to regulate basic cable service rates. Time Warner claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DIRECTV, Inc. (``DIRECTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). The City of Brookfield (the ``City'')
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2198A1.txt
  • D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: Kansas City Cable Partners Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Shawnee, Kansas (KS0431) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5956-E Adopted: June 30, 2003 Released: July 9, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Kansas City Cable Partners (``KCCP'') has filed with the Commission a petition (``Petition'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Shawnee, Kansas (``Shawnee''). KCCP alleges that its cable system serving Shawnee is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2199A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5714-E New Ulm, Minnesota CUID No. NM0033 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 30, 2003 Released: July 9, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION Amzak Cable Midwest, Inc., d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed a Petition for Special Relief seeking a determination of effective competition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules, and an order to revoke the basic rate certification authority of the City of New Ulm, Minnesota. Time Warner asserts that it is subject to local exchange carrier (``LEC'') effective competition in the above-captioned community because of the presence of New Ulm Telecom, Inc.'s (``NT'') cable services in that community. The petition is unopposed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2276A1.txt
  • Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Chariton, Iowa (``Chariton''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Chariton is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Chariton to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Chariton stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2338A1.txt
  • Georgia LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Americus, Georgia (``Americus''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Americus is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Americus to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Americus stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petition was filed. DISCUSSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-28A1.txt
  • stems from the competing services provided by RCN-BecoCom, L.L.C. (``RCN''), a franchised cable operator that also provides local exchange carrier (``LEC'') service in the Communities. No opposition to the Petition was filed. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Based on the record in this proceeding, MediaOne has met this burden, insofar as the LEC effective competition test is concerned. The LEC Test Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-353A1.txt
  • 20554 In the Matter of: Kansas City Cable Partners Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Overland Park, Kansas (KS0064) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5993-E Adopted: February 3, 2003 Released: February 5, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Kansas City Cable Partners (``KCCP'') has filed with the Commission a petition (``Petition'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Overland Park, Kansas (``Overland Park''). KCCP alleges that its cable system serving Overland Park is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-415A1.txt
  • CSR 5879-E Adopted: February 10, 2003 Released: February 12, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. and Key Biscayne Cablevision, each doing business as Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia''), has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in three Florida communities (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-416A1.txt
  • L.P. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Doylestown (OH0787) and Chippewa (OH1590), Ohio ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-5955-E Adopted: February 5, 2003 Released: February 12, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. and TW Fanch-Two Co. (collectively, ``Time Warner'') have filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Doylestown and Chippewa, Ohio (``the Communities''). Time Warner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules. Time Warner claims the presence of effective
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-419A1.txt
  • Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5903-E Adopted: February 11, 2003 Released: February 13, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: ` introduction Century-TCI California, L.P., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia''), has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in five communities in California (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the petition was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-448A1.txt
  • 13, 2003 Released: February 21, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Century-TCI California, L.P., Adelphia Cablevision of Fontana LLC, and Adelphia Cablevision of Inland Empire LLC d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in seven California communities (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its' cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). In addition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-450A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5885-E Adopted: February 13, 2003 Released: February 21, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Century-TCI California, L. P., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia''), has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in three California communities (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-474A1.txt
  • By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Century-TCI California, L.P., Adelphia Cablevision of Orange County II L.L.C., Adelphia California Cablevision L.L.C., and Adelphia Cablevision of Santa Ana L.L.C. d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in thirteen California communities (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No opposition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-603A1.txt
  • (2002)(``Falcon''). The 12 Oregon communities include: Bay City (OR0086); Brownsville (OR0214); Coberg (OR0176); Cottage Grove (OR0340); Creswell (OR0321); Drain (OR0052); Garibaldi (OR0087); Lowell (OR0206); Oakridge (OR0079); Veneta (OR0209); Westfir (OR0248); Yoncalla (OR0202). We note that the community of Creswell is not a party to these appeals. See 47 U.S.C. § 543((l)(1)(A)-(D). Falcon, 17 FCC Rcd at 4650. See 47 C.F.R. §76.905. Appeal Petition at 3 (CSB-A-0675). It is worth noting that Falcon's Petition for Determination of Effective Competition was filed April 13, 2001. Id. Id. n.3. Id. Astoria (OR0011) and Cannon Beach (OR0042) are included in this Falcon appeal petition. However, these two communities were not the subject of the effective competition determination discussed herein. Therefore, the exemption from rate regulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-620A1.txt
  • Various Virginia Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5894-E Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 6, 2003 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction UCA, LLC d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in six Virginia communities (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). Loudoun County filed an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1011A1.txt
  • on behalf of the Cities of Suffolk and Bedford, and the Towns of Chincoteague, Colonial Beach, and Rocky Mount, Virginia (the''Cities''); and Charter filed replies. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1015A1.txt
  • Inc. (``Cablevision'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in nine New York cable communities (``Communities''). Cablevision alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the New York Public Service Commission to regulate basic cable service rates. Cablevision claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). The Petition is unopposed. DISCUSSION In the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1029A1.txt
  • its various subsidiaries, has filed with the Commission three separate petitions pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for determinations of effective competition in several New Jersey communities (``Communities''). Cablevision alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certifications of the local franchising authorities in the Communities to regulate basic cable service rates. Cablevision claims the presence of effective competition in the Communities stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). The Division of the Ratepayer Advocate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1040A1.txt
  • 623(1)(1)(A) of the Act. The local franchising authority of each of these Communities (the ``LFAs'') filed joint Oppositions to the petitions, and Charter filed replies. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1072A1.txt
  • of Maryland, Inc. (``Comcast'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Charles County, MD (``County''). Comcast alleges that its cable system serving the County is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in the County to regulate basic cable service rates. Comcast claims the presence of effective competition in the County stems from the competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation (``EchoStar''). The County filed an opposition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1994A1.txt
  • CSR 6075-E CSR 6111-E CSR 6126-E & 6182-E CSR 6148-E, 6159-E & 6212-E CSR 6184-E CSR 6211-E, 6224-E & 6239-E Adopted: June 29, 2004 Released: June 30, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. INtroduction 1. This Order considers eleven unopposed petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and the Commission's implementing rules and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to the petitions was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-19A1.txt
  • Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Rate Regulation, Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994). Rate Order at 5732. See Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc., D/B/A Time Warner Cable, 18 FCC Rcd 12848 (2003)(``Alert''). See 47 U.S.C. § 543((l)(1)(A)-(D). See Alert, 18 FCC Rcd at 12849. See 47 C.F.R. §76.905. 47 C.F.R. § 76.906. See Falcon Cablevision (Thousand Oaks, California), 12 FCC Rcd 8229, 8234 (CSB 1997); Rifkin and Associates, Inc., (Duluth, Georgia), 17 FCC Rcd 14233 (2002). 47 C.F.R. § 0.283. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 04-19 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-19 h': F ] • • i tm tm É+ ': Ë: ± Û
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2014A1.txt
  • carrier that provides local exchange access services, or is an affiliate of a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') that provides LEC services, in the respective Cities. No opposition to the petitions was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2066A1.txt
  • largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. BeamSpeed has met this burden. BeamSpeed has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that Wellton is served by at least two unaffiliated MVPDs offering comparable service to more than 50% of the households therein. BeamSpeed asserts that the service of direct broadcast satellite providers such as DIRECTV and EchoStar satisfy this requirement.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-213A1.txt
  • In the Matter of: Kansas City Cable Partners Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Kansas City, MO (MO0199) (MO200) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6104-E Adopted: January 28, 2004 Released: January 29, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Kansas City Cable Partners (``KCCP'') has filed with the Commission a petition (``Petition'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Kansas City, Missouri (``Kansas City''). KCCP alleges that its cable system serving Kansas City is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3049A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6307-E, 6318-E & 6319-E CSR 6302-E CSR 6312-E & 6327-E Adopted: September 22, 2004 Released: September 24, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. INtroduction 1. This Order considers six unopposed petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and the Commission's implementing rules and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3088A1.txt
  • Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Forest City (IA0151), Clear Lake (IA0076) and Ventura (IA0393), IA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6323-E CSR-6328-E Adopted: September 24, 2004 Released: September 28, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission two petitions pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Forest City, Clear Lake and Ventura, Iowa (``the Communities''). Mediacom alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Communications Act''), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-615A1.txt
  • Competition in Le Sueur, Minnesota (MN0535) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6009-E Adopted: March 2, 2004 Released: March 4, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Le Sueur, Minnesota (``Le Sueur''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving the City is subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. (``DirecTV'') and DISH Network (``DISH''). No
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-937A1.txt
  • to the City of Lakeville by the City of Lakeville (the ``City''). Charter filed a reply, and the City filed an unauthorized additional reply pleading. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-938A1.txt
  • Michigan (``Owosso''), filed a letter stating opposition to grant of the petition with respect to that community, and Charter filed a reply to that letter. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-939A1.txt
  • Communications Act. An opposition to the petition was filed by the local franchising authority of the City of Shakopee (the ``City''). discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-940A1.txt
  • the petition was filed by the local franchising authority of the City of Baytown (the ``City''). Texas Cable filed a reply. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-948A1.txt
  • & 6221-E File No. CSR 6171-E File No. CSR 6102-E File No. CSR 6137-E File No. CSR 6099-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 2, 2004 Released: April 6, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers nineteen unopposed petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such cable operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No oppositions to the petitions were
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1393A1.txt
  • 6565-E, 6587-E, 6588-E, 6589-E, 6624-E CSR CSR 6558-E CSR 6566-E CSR 6591-E CSR 6468-E, 6469-E, 6470-E, 6471-E, 6472-E, 6473-E, 6474-E, 6475-E, 6476-E Adopted: May 18, 2005 Released: May 19, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers twenty-two unopposed petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1394A1.txt
  • 6450-E, 6479-E, 6483-E, 6638-E, 6641-E, 6644-E, 6645-E, 6646-E, 6655-E, 6659-E CSR CSR 6436-E, 6642-E, 6643-E, 6649-E CSR 6590-E, 6647-E, 6648-E CSR 6601-E Adopted: May 18, 2005 Released: May 19, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers twenty-four unopposed petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • 1992. . Section Number and Title: 76.801 Scope. SUBPART N -- CABLE RATE REGULATION Brief Description: These rules provides for regulation of cable rates by local franchising authorities and the Commission. Need: The rules ensure that subscribers pay reasonable rates for regulated cable services with minimum regulatory and administrative burden on cable entities. . Section Number and Title: 76.901 Definitions. 76.905 Standards for identification of cable systems subject to effective competition. 76.906 Presumption of no effective competition. 76.907 Petition for a determination of effective competition. 76.910 Franchising authority certification. 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification. 76.912 Joint certification. 76.913 Assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission. 76.914 Revocation of certification. 76.916 Petition for recertification. 76.917 Notification of certification withdrawal. 76.920 Composition of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1562A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6612-E CSR-6613-E CSR-6614-E CSR-6615-E CSR-6616-E CSR-6617-E CSR-6618-E CSR-6619-E CSR-6620-E CSR-6621-E CSR-6622-E CSR-6623-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 27, 2005 Released: June 2, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers twelve petitions filed with the Commission by TCA Cable Partners (``Cox'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Cox's cable systems serving eighteen Arkansas communities and one Oklahoma and one Texas community (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1649A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6456-E CSR-6457-E CSR-6458-E CSR-6459-E CSR-6460-E CSR-6461-E CSR-6462-E CSR-6463-E CSR-6464-E CSR-6465-E CSR-6466-E CSR-6467-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 9, 2005 Released: June 13, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers twelve petitions filed with the Commission by Charter Communications, on behalf of its affiliates, (``Charter'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving twenty-three Oregon communities (``the Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1912A1.txt
  • largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. RC has met this burden. RC has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that the franchise areas are served by at least two unaffiliated MVPDs offering comparable service to more than 50 percent of the households therein. RC asserts that the service of direct broadcast satellite providers such as DIRECTV and EchoStar
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1924A1.txt
  • in Louisiana ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6603-E CSR-6604-E CSR-6605-E CSR-6606-E CSR-6607-E CSR-6608-E CSR-6609-E CSR-6610-E CSR-6611-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 30, 2005 Released: July 1, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers nine petitions filed with the Commission by Cox Communications Louisiana, LLC (``Cox'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Cox's cable systems serving seventeen communities in Louisiana (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1925A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6713-E CSR-6714-E CSR-6715-E CSR-6716-E CSR-6717-E CSR-6718-E CSR-6719-E CSR-6720-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 30, 2005 Released: July 1, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers eight petitions filed with the Commission by Charter Communications, on behalf of its affiliates, (``Charter'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving twenty-three Michigan communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1926A1.txt
  • Franchise Areas in Michigan ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6672-E CSR-6673-E CSR-6674-E CSR-6675-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 30, 2005 Released: July 1, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers four petitions filed with the Commission by Charter Communications, on behalf of its affiliates, (``Charter'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving twenty-seven Michigan communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1927A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6688-E CSR-6689-E CSR-6690-E CSR-6691-E CSR-6692-E CSR-6693-E CSR-6694-E CSR-6695-E CSR-6696-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 30, 2005 Released: July 1, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers nine petitions filed with the Commission by Charter Communications, on behalf of its affiliates, (``Charter'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving twenty-five Michigan communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1932A1.txt
  • 6557-E, 6662-E, 6665-E, 6669-E & 6680-E CSR 6663-E CSR 6640-E, 6656-E, 6682-E, 6683-E & 6685-E CSR 6533-E & 6534-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 30, 2005 Released: July 6, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers seventeen petitions which cable operators (``the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2511A1.txt
  • 6629-E & 6630-E CSR 6740-E, 6784-E, 6861-E & 6892-E CSR 6780-E CSR 6433-E & 6434-E CSR 6439-E & 6444-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 23, 2005 Released: September 27, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers twenty petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2512A1.txt
  • with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Alta, Iowa (``Alta'' or the ``City''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Alta is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(3) of the Commission's rules and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Alta to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Alta stems from the competing service provided by Alta Municipal Utilities (``ALTATEC''), a cable system operated by a municipality serving the residents of the franchise area. No opposition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2527A1.txt
  • the Matter of: MCC Iowa LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition for Six Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6482-E Adopted: September 28, 2005 Released: September 30, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction MCC Iowa, LLC and Mediacom Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the Communities listed in Attachment A. Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving these Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2528A1.txt
  • Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: MCC Iowa LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (IA0079) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6389-E Adopted: September 28, 2005 Released: September 30, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa (the ``Franchise Area''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(4) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, and therefore is exempt from cable rate regulation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2531A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6639-E, 6661-E CSR-6664-E, 6684-E CSR-6668-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 23, 2005 Released: September 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers five petitions filed with the Commission by MCC Illinois LLC, Mediacom Illinois LLC and Mediacom Indiana LLC (``Mediacom'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom's cable systems serving twenty-one Illinois and Michigan communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2532A1.txt
  • Illinois ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6705-E CSR-6731-E, 6732-E, 6733-E, 6735-E & 6746-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 23, 2005 Released: September 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers six petitions filed with the Commission by Mediacom Southeast LLC and Mediacom Illinois LLC (``Mediacom'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom's cable systems serving twenty-seven Illinois communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2535A1.txt
  • ) ) ) CSR 6729-E, 6840-E, 6841-E, 6847-E, 6851-E, 6852-E, 6862-E, 6867-E CSR 6710-E, 6756-E, 6768-E, 6770-E, 6773-E, 6775-E, 6788-E, 6797-E, 6798-E, 6799-E Adopted: September 27, 2005 Released: September 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers eighteen petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2544A1.txt
  • 6634-E, 6635-E & 6636-E CSR 6781-E, 6782-E & 6783-E, CSR 6598-E, 6734-E, 6743-E, 6796-E, 6802-E, 6807-E, 6825-E & 6889-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 28, 2005 Released: September 30, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers eighteen petitions which cable operators (``the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2637A1.txt
  • Lake (MN0572), Greenwood (MN0573), Deephaven (MN0574), Woodland (MN0575) and Victoria (MN0576). Mediacom's petition for a finding of effective competition was filed on September 5, 2003. See Mediacom Minnesota LLC, Petition for Determination of Effective Competition and Revocation of Certification in Sixteen Minnesota Communities, CSR 6241-E, 20 FCC Rcd 4984 (MB 2005). ("Mediacom Minnesota LLC''). 47 U.S.C.§ 543(a)(2). See 47 C.F.R. §76.905. See Mediacom Minnesota LLC, 20 FCC Rcd 4984, 4989 (MB 2005). See Alert Cable T.V. of North Carolina, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 80, 81 (MB 2004); Falcon Cablevision, 12 FCC Rcd 8229, 8234 (CSB 1997); Rifkin & Associates, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 14233, 14234 (2002). 47 C.F.R. § 0.283. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2637 Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2642A1.txt
  • under the ``competing provider'' test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. The Cities of Garden Grove, Hawthorne, Lawndale and Torrance, the County of Los Angeles, and the Public Cable Television Authority (representing Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Stanton and Westminster) have filed oppositions; Time Warner has filed replies. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant franchise areas. Section 623(l) of the Act provides that a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2850A1.txt
  • Bright House Networks, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Unincorporated Hillsborough County, Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6133-E Adopted: October 27, 2005 Released: October 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in unincorporated Hillsborough County, Florida (the ``Community''). Bright House alleges that its cable system serving the Community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2854A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) CSR 6722-E CSR 6828-E, 6830-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 28, 2005 Released: October 31, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers three petitions that cable operators, MCC Missouri LLC (``MCC'') and Mediacom Southeast LLC (``Mediacom; collectively, the ``Cable Operators''), have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2855A1.txt
  • CSR 6651-E, 6654-E CSR 6652-E, 6653-E, 6657-E, 6658-E, 6707-E, 6708-E, 6791-E, 6806-E, 6819-E, 6822-E, 6835-E, 6836-E, 6837-E, 6838-E, 6844-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 28, 2005 Released: October 31, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers seventeen petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2912A1.txt
  • of: Adelphia Cable Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Five Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6364-E Adopted: November 3, 2005 Released: November 4, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers a petition that Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that it is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the local franchise areas listed in Attachments A and B (the ``Franchise Areas''). The petition is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2931A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in Springfield, Missouri ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6771-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 3, 2005 Released: November 7, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers a Petition for Special Relief (``Petition'') that cable operator MCC Missouri LLC (``MCC'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that it is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Springfield, Missouri, franchise area (``Springfield''). Responding to the Petition, the City of Springfield, Missouri (the ``City''), filed an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2950A1.txt
  • In the Matter of: Comcast of Dallas, L.P. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Dallas, Texas ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6445-E Adopted: November 7, 2005 Released: November 14, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Comcast of Dallas, L.P. (``Comcast'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Dallas, Texas (the ``Community''). Comcast alleges that its cable system serving the Community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing service provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3238A1.txt
  • CSR-6793-E CSR-6794-E CSR-6795-E CSR-6805-E CSR-6811-E CSR-6813-E CSR-6814-E CSR-6817-E CSR-6821-E CSR-6823-E CSR-6824-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 27, 2005 Released: December 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers twelve petitions filed with the Commission by MCC Iowa LLC, MCC Illinois LLC, Mediacom Illinois LLC and Mediacom Indiana LLC (``Mediacom'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1)&(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom's cable systems serving twenty-three Illinois and Michigan communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3251A1.txt
  • Matter of: Mediacom Minnesota LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in St. James, Minnesota (CUID MN0312) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6010-E Adopted: December 20, 2005 Released: December 22, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in the City of St. James, Minnesota. Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving the City is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3293A1.txt
  • and Westminster (CA0750). 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2). Time Warner's petition for a finding of effective competition was filed on November 17, 2004. See Time Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable, Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Nineteen California Franchise Areas, DA 05-2642, __ FCC Rcd ___ (MB, released October 4, 2005) ("TWE-AN Order"). See 47 C.F.R. §76.905. See TWE-AN Order at ¶ 12. See Alert Cable T.V. of North Carolina, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 80, 81 (MB 2004); Falcon Cablevision, 12 FCC Rcd 8229, 8234 (CSB 1997); Rifkin & Associates, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 14233, 14234 (2002). 47 C.F.R. § 0.283. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-3293 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-3293 h':
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3328A1.txt
  • Texas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6396-E, 6397-E, 6398-E, 6399-E, 6400-E, 6401-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 27, 2005 Released: December 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers six petitions which the cable operator Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (``Comcast''), filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905 of the Commission's rules for a determination that, in 42 communities in Texas (the ``Communities''), it is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Franchise authorities have filed objections to Comcast's petitions concerning two of the Communities. We find that those
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3329A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6422-E, 6423-E, 6454-E, 6496-E, 6497-E, 6498-E, 6559-E, 6560-E, 6561-E, 6562-E, 6563-E, 6564-E CSR 6405-E Adopted: December 27, 2005 Released: December 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers thirteen petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3330A1.txt
  • with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the City of Algona, Iowa (``Algona'' or the ``City''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving Algona is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and Section 76.905(b)(3) of the Commission's rules and seeks revocation of the certification of the local franchising authority in Algona to regulate basic cable service rates. Mediacom claims the presence of effective competition in Algona stems from the competing service provided by Algona Municipal Utilities (``AMU''), a cable system operated by a municipality serving the residents of the franchise area. No opposition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3331A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6721-E, 6724-E, 6737-E, 6739-E, 6758-E CSR 6887-E CSR 6709-E, 6728-E, 6748-E, 6800-E, 6803-E, 6888-E Adopted: December 27, 2005 Released: December 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers twelve petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3332A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6702-E, 6706-E, 6736-E, 6741-E, 6742-E, 6744-E, 6754-E, 6839-E, 6869-E CSR 6808-E, 6809-E, 6810-E Adopted: December 27, 2005 Released: December 28, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers twelve petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3335A1.txt
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: MCC Iowa, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Carroll, IA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6438-E Adopted: December 28, 2005 Released: December 29, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction MCC Iowa, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Carroll, Iowa. Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving this community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. More particularly, Mediacom claims
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3336A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6747-E CSR-6752-E CSR-6753-E CSR-6757-E CSR-6776-E CSR-6777-E CSR-6778-E CSR-6787-E CSR-6789-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 28, 2005 Released: December 29, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers nine petitions filed with the Commission by Mediacom Illinois LLC and MCC Illinois LLC (``Mediacom'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1)&(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom's cable systems serving thirty Illinois communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3337A1.txt
  • Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6514-E, 6515-E, 6516-E, 6517-E, 6518-E, 6519-E, 6520-E, 6521-E Adopted: December 28, 2005 Released: December 29, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers a petition that Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') filed with the Commission on behalf of its affiliates pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that it is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in twenty-three franchise areas (the ``Franchise Areas''). The Cities of Winchester, Morehead, and Cynthiana (``the Cities'') have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3350A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in Twenty-six Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6404-E Adopted: December 28, 2005 Released: December 30, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers a petition that Service Electric Cable TV of New Jersey, Inc. (``Service Electric'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that it is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in twenty-six franchise areas (``Franchise Areas''). The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (``BPU'') has filed an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3351A1.txt
  • in the Franchise Area under the ``competing provider'' test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. The City of Boca Raton (``City'') has filed an opposition and Adelphia has filed a reply. Finding that Adelphia is subject to effective competition in the Franchise Area, we grant the petition. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Act provides that a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-524A1.txt
  • Slater. Mediacom further asserts that each of the Cooperatives is a local exchange carrier that provides local exchange access services in the respective Franchise Areas. No opposition to the petitions was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a local exchange carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-530A1.txt
  • ``competing provider'' effective competition test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-542A1.txt
  • MCC claims the presence of effective competition stems from the competing cable services provided in the Communities by MPVD providers operated by those municipal entities. No opposition to the petitions was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(C) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a multi-channel video programming
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-544A1.txt
  • ``competing provider'' effective competition test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-545A1.txt
  • the Communications Act. The petition is opposed by the cities of Greenacres and West Palm Beach, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (the ``Cities''). discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-546A1.txt
  • Matter of: Mediacom Minnesota LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition and Revocation of Certification in Sixteen Minnesota Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6241-E Adopted: February 28, 2005 Released: March 7, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introductions Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for revocation of the certification of the Lake Minnesota Cable Commission (``LMCC'') to regulate basic cable rates due to the presence of effective competition in the sixteen communities (``the Franchise Area'') listed on Attachment A. Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition and is therefore exempt
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-547A1.txt
  • asks for a revocation of any certificate to regulate basic cable services issued by the Commission to any of the Communities. The petitions are unopposed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if either one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-646A1.txt
  • from the LFA's response, Time Warner filed an additional pleading containing a recalculation of DBS subscribers in some franchise areas, to which the LFAs replied. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, if any one of four tests for effective competition set forth therein
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-665A1.txt
  • South Dakota franchise areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6375-E CSR-6376-E CSR-6377-E CSR-6378-E CSR-6379-E Adopted: March 9, 2005 Released: March 14, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction MCC Iowa LLC, Mediacom Minnesota LLC, and Zylstra Communications Corporation (collectively ``Mediacom'') have filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in the Cities of Storm Lake and Lakeside, Iowa; the Cities of Luverne, Pipestone, Slayton and Worthington, Minnesota; the Cities of Colman, Flandreau, and Yankton, South Dakota and the Town of Gayville, South Dakota (collectively ``the Communities''). Mediacom alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-685A1.txt
  • access services in Odessa. Finally, Cable One asks for a revocation of the Commission's certification of the City of Odessa to regulate basic cable services. No opposition to the petition was filed. discussion In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if a LEC or its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-996A1.txt
  • 6416-E, 6480-E, 6485-E, 6486-E, 6487-E, 6489-E, 6499-E, 6500-E , 6501-E, 6527-E, 6528-E & 6529-E CSR 6478-E CSR 6481-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 31, 2005 Released: April 1, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers nineteen unopposed petitions which cable operators (``the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.txt
  • Title: 76.505 Prohibition on buy outs. SUBPART N - CABLE RATE REGULATION Brief Description: This rule provides an additional prong to the definition of cable systems subject to effective competition. Need: This rules implements Section 303(b)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was codified at 623(1)(l)(D) of the Communications Act. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 543. Section Number and Title: 76.905 Standards for identification of cable systems subject to effective competition. SUBPART R - TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT IMPLEMENTATION Brief Description: These rules provide interim procedures for administering certain aspects of cable regulation. These rules are interim because the Commission has solicited comment regarding the specific matters addressed in these rules and may modify their operation when they are promulgated in final form.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-193A1.txt
  • of Effective Competition in Argyle, Wisconsin (WI0550) and Blanchardville, WI (WI0465) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6599-E, 6831-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 25, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction Mediacom Wisconsin LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed two petitions with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Villages of Argyle and Blanchardville, Wisconsin (the ``Communities''). No opposition to either petition was filed. Finding that Mediacom is subject
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1946A1.txt
  • of Effective Competition in two Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7045-E CSR-7047-E Memorandum Opinion AND ORDER Adopted: September 27, 2006 Released: September 29, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction This Order considers two petitions which MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1947A1.txt
  • Charter Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Kearney, Nebraska ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7030-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 27, 2006 Released: September 29, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission, on behalf of its affiliates, pursuant to Section 76.7 and 76.905 of the Commission's rules, for a determination of the effective competition in Kearney, Nebraska (``Franchise Area''). Charter claims that its cable system serving Kearney, Nebraska is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Charter alleges that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1975A1.txt
  • MCC Iowa LLC Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in two Iowa Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7044-E & 7046-E Adopted: October 2, 2006 Released: October 5, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers two petitions which MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operator is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1985A1.txt
  • In the Matter of: Charter Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Nevada Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6417-E, 6418-E, 6419-E Adopted: October 2, 2006 Released: October 5, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for determinations of effective competition in several Nevada communities pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A. The cities of Carson City, Reno, Sparks, Nevada and Washoe County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2038A1.txt
  • of: MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Minnesota Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6895-E Adopted: October 12, 2006 Released: October 17, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving various Minnesota franchise areas listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in those communities. No
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2119A1.txt
  • ) ) CSR-7015-E, 7016-E, 7017-E, 7018-E, 7019-E, 7020-E, 7021-E, 7022-E, 7023-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 26, 2006 Released: October 27, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers a Petition for Special Relief (``Petition'') that the cable operator Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Ltd. (``Liberty''), filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905, and 76.907 of the Commission's rules. The Petition seeks a determination that, in seven franchise areas in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Liberty is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. No opposition to the Petition was filed. Finding that Liberty
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2529A1.txt
  • the transition rules for a class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective GSAs, as calculated in accordance with the requirements Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-254A1.txt
  • Matter of: Charter Communications Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Beatrice, Louisville and Plattsmouth, Nebraska ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6420-E CSR 6421-E Adopted: February 1, 2006 Released: February 2, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed two petitions with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving the three Nebraska communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in those communities. No
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2617A1.txt
  • the transition rules for a class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective GSAs, as calculated in accordance with the requirements Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-278A1.txt
  • February 3, 2006 Released: February 6, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers eleven petitions filed with the Commission by Mediacom Illinois LLC, MCC Illinois, LLC, Mediacom Indiana LLC, Mediacom Southeast LLC, Bright House Networks and Charter Communications (collectively ``the Petitioners,'' unless otherwise specifically referred to by individual company name) pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1)&(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioners' cable systems serving twenty-two Illinois and Michigan communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-284A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6761-E CSR 6762-E CSR 6763-E CSR 6764-E CSR 6765-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 3, 2006 Released: February 7, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers five petitions filed with the Commission by Charter Communications, on behalf of its affiliates, (``Charter'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving seven Missouri communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. An opposition was filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-285A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6902-E CSR 6903-E CSR 6904-E CSR 6907-E CSR 6908-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 3, 2006 Released: February 7, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers five petitions filed with the Commission by Charter Communications, on behalf of its affiliates, (``Charter'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving twenty nine Missouri communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The Communities are listed in Attachment A. An opposition was filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-59A1.txt
  • Louisville, Illinois (IL0284), Morris, Minnesota (MN0012) and Chokio, Minnesota (MN0179) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6352-E CSR 6354-E Adopted: January 12, 2006 Released: January 13, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') and MCC Illinois LLC (collectively ``Mediacom'') have filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the Village of Louisville, Illinois and the Cities of Morris and Chokio, Minnesota (collectively ``the Franchise Areas''). Mediacom alleges that its cable systems serving the Franchise Areas are subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(4) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-623A1.txt
  • of the Certification of the City Fort Stockton, Texas to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6510-E Adopted: March 30, 2006 Released: March 31, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction U.S. Cable of Coastal-Texas, L.P. (``U.S. Cable'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Fort Stockton, Texas. U.S. Cable alleges that its cable system serving the City of Fort Stockton, Texas (the ``City'') is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-63A1.txt
  • of Effective Competition in Seventeen Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6700-E, 6701-E, 6703-E, 6704-E, 6730-E, 6853-E, 6602-E, 6625-E Adopted: January 12, 2006 Released: January 13, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers eight petitions which Mediacom Southeast LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that it is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the franchise areas listed in Attachments A and B (the ``Franchise Areas''). No opposition to any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-744A1.txt
  • Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Seven Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6660-E, 6667-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 30, 2006 Released: March 31, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction Mediacom Wisconsin LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed two petitions with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the franchise areas listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to either petition was filed. Finding that Mediacom is subject
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-745A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6855-E CSR 6894-E CSR 6567-E, 6833-E CSR 6832-E CSR 6856-E CSR 6940-E Adopted: March 30, 2006 Released: March 31, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers eight petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-746A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6568-E, 6569-E CSR 6522-E, 6523-E, 6538-E, 6539-E, 6540-E, 6541-E CSR 6530, 6531-E Adopted: March 30, 2006 Released: March 31, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers ten petitions which cable operators (the ``Cable Operators'') have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-747A1.txt
  • Comcast Cable Communications, LLC Two Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in various Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6596-E, 6597-E Adopted: March 30, 2006 Released: March 31, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (``Comcast'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving various Colorado franchise areas listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. In addition, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-750A1.txt
  • of: Charter Communications Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Mount Vernon, Okawville, Salem and Richmond, Illinois ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6759-E CSR-6760-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 30, 2006 Released: March 31, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction Charter Communications has filed with the Commission two petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving four Illinois communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The City of Salem, Illinois (``Salem'') filed an opposition against one of the petitions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-760A1.txt
  • Mediacom Iowa, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6896-E Adopted: March 30, 2006 Released: April 3, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Iowa LLC and MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') have filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving various Iowa communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in those communities. No opposition to the petition was filed. Finding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-776A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in Twenty-One Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6723-E, 6725-E, 6727-E, 6755-E Adopted: March 31, 2006 Released: April 4, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. INtroduction 1. This Order considers four petitions which Mediacom Southeast, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and the Commission's implementing rules and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A and in the communities listed in Attachment B (the ``Communities'').
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-78A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6047-E Adopted: January 25, 2006 Released: January 26, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Alert Cable TV of South Carolina, Inc. and Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in thirty-eight communities in South Carolina (the ``Communities''). Time Warner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Time Warner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-968A1.txt
  • the transition rules for a class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective GSAs, as calculated in accordance with the requirements Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1041A1.txt
  • Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Various North Carolina Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6524-E, CSR 6525-E & CSR 6526-E Adopted: March 6, 2007 Released: March 7, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Caswell County, Lenoir County, Pink Hill, and Pitt County, North Carolina (collectively the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable system serving the communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1064A1.txt
  • supplied by an industry source would be contrary to the intent of the Act; and (2) accepting DBS penetration data from a private entity would constitute an unlawful delegation of the Commission's authority in the effective competition context. Cox has filed a Reply to the City's Opposition, as summarized below. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's Rules, we must presume that a cable system does not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, a cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence demonstrating the presence of effective competition within the relevant franchise areas. Application of the ``Competing Provider'' Effective Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1065A1.txt
  • provided by two unaffiliated direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corporation. As a result, Charter asserts that it is subject to effective competition in the Franchise Area under the ``competing provider'' test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. Charter's petition was not opposed. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant Franchise Area. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1066A1.txt
  • by Cox in unincorporated Pitt County. Cox filed a Consolidated Reply to Oppositions of Pitt County and the City of Greenville, North Carolina (``Reply''). In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(l)(1) of the Communications Act (``the Act'') and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. A cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that it does exist in its franchise area. DISCUSSION Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if its franchise area is (1) served by at least two unaffiliated multi-channel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1083A1.txt
  • § 623(a)(4), 47 C.F.R. § 543(a)(4). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 76.911; Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5693 (1993) ("Rate Order"). 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(c)(1). Communications Act of 1935, as amended, §623(1)(1)(A), 47 U.S.C. §543(1)(A); see also 47 C.F.R. §76.905(b)(1). See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, First reports on reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 1164, 1180 (1993); 47 C.F.R. §76.915(a). 47 C.F.R. §76.910(e) (certification becomes effective 30 days after the date of filing). See Petition at Exhibit 2, U.S. Census for Florida,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1088A1.txt
  • Cable Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Weston, Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6548-E Adopted: March 7, 2007 Released: March 8, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers a petition filed with the Commission by Advocate Communications, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Cable Communications, Inc (``Advanced'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Advanced's cable system serving Weston, Florida is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The City of Weston (``Weston'') opposed the petition and Advanced filed a reply. We deny
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1115A1.txt
  • to the petition was filed. Finding that Cox is subject to effective competition in the franchise areas, we grant the petition. discussion Competing Provider Effective Competition In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(l)(1) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. A cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present in the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if its franchise area is (a) served by at least
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1116A1.txt
  • City of Salamanca (NY0021) New York to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6339-E Adopted: March 8, 2007 Released: March 9, 2007 By the Deputy Chief Media Bureau: I. Introduction 1. Atlantic Broadband (Penn) LLC (``Atlantic'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in the following New York communities: (1) the Town of Great Valley; (2) the Town of Little Valley; (3) the Village of Little Valley; (4) the City of Salamanca; (5) and the Town of Salamanca. Atlantic alleges that its cable systems serving the captioned areas are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1250A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in San Antonio, Texas (CUID No. TX0029) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5721-E Adopted: March 12, 2007 Released: March 13, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Paragon Communications, Inc. d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in San Antonio, Texas (``San Antonio'' or the ``City''). Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving San Antonio is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and seeks revocation of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1251A1.txt
  • Cable Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Austin, Texas (CUID No. TX0029) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5701-E Adopted: March 12, 2007 Released: March 13, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Austin, Texas (``Austin'' or the ``City''). Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving Austin is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and seeks revocation of the certification of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1257A1.txt
  • the Matter of Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in San Marcos, Texas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 5712-E Adopted: March 12, 2007 Released: March 13, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in San Marcos, Texas (``San Marcos'' or the ``City''). Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving San Marcos is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and seeks revocation of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-159A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in the Farmington Hills, Livonia, and Novi, Michigan Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6941-E Adopted: January 22, 2007 Released: January 24, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving various Michigan communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in those communities. Southwestern Oakland Cable Commission (``SWOCC'') filed a comment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-160A1.txt
  • forth in Section 623(1)(1)(A). Specifically, Comcast claims that the competing provider effective competition present in these Franchise Areas arises from the competing services provided by two unaffiliated direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. The City of Los Angeles has filed oppositions; Comcast has filed replies. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant franchise areas. A. Competing Provider Effective Competition Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-161A1.txt
  • result, Charter asserts that it is subject to effective competition in these franchise areas under the ``competing provider'' test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. The Cities of Calabasas, Duarte, Long Beach, and West Covina have filed oppositions to Charter's petitions to which Charter has filed replies. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant franchise areas. Section 623(l) of the Act provides that a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1628A1.txt
  • to effective competition under the ``low penetration'' test set forth in Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act. No oppositions were filed. BACKGROUND In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. A finding of effective competition exempts a cable operator from rate regulation and certain other Commission cable regulations. Section 623(l) of the Act provides that a cable operator
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-162A1.txt
  • County (FL0900) and Inverness (FL09905), FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6534-E & 6535-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 22, 2007 Released: January 24, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction Telesat Acquisition LLC d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia'') has filed with the Commission two petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Osceola County and the City of Inverness, Florida (the ``Communities''). Adelphia alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-183A1.txt
  • Island Corporation Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in the Town of Hempstead, New York (NY0454) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7040-E Adopted: January 22, 2007 Released: January 24, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Cablevision Systems Long Island Corporation (``Cablevision'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the Town of Hempstead, New York (the ``Franchise Area''). Cablevision alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(4) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, and therefore is exempt from cable rate regulation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-184A1.txt
  • in the Villages of Nyack, New York (NY0870) and South Nyack, New York (NY0872) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7031-E Adopted: January 22, 2007 Released: January 24, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Cablevision of Rockland/Ramapo, LLC (``Cablevision'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the Villages of Nyack, New York and South Nyack, New York (collectively, the ``Franchise Areas''). Cablevision alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Areas are subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(4) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, and therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-185A1.txt
  • Competition in Three Local Franchise Areas in Kentucky and Tennessee ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6865-E CSR-6874-E Adopted: January 22, 2007 Released: January 24, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers two petitions filed with the Commission by Mediacom Southeast LLC (Mediacom) pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom's cable systems serving certain communities in Kentucky (the ``communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The communities include Clinton, Gamaliel, and Henderson, Kentucky. No opposition to any petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-195A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Charter Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6453-E Adopted: January 24, 2007 Released: January 25, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers a petition which Charter Communications (``Charter'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operator is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in Owatonna, Minnesota. No opposition to the petition was filed. Finding that Charter is subject to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-196A1.txt
  • Cable Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Germantown, Ohio ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6551-E Adopted: January 24, 2007 Released: January 25, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Time Warner Entertainment Company LP d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable system serving Germantown, Ohio (``Germantown'') is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the community listed in Attachment A. The Miami Valley Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2167A1.txt
  • case-by-case basis for those operators or their affiliates that meet the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and that provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective geographic service areas (GSAs) (this calculation is made in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's Rules). The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is co-located with any qualified MVPD licensee that elects to opt-out. In addition, the Commission found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable business
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2168A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2169A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2170A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2171A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2172A1.txt
  • a class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective geographic service areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2173A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2174A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2186A1.txt
  • rules for a class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective GSAs, as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2187A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2188A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2189A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2192A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2193A1.txt
  • class of operators or their affiliates that: (1) meet the definition of a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) as defined in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective Geographic Service Areas (GSAs), as calculated in accordance with the requirements of Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is collocated with any qualified MVPD licensee that seeks a waiver to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2282A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6924-E, 6991-E CSR 7071-E, 7072-E, 7123-E Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers several petitions which Coxcom, Inc. (``Coxcom'') and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (``Comcast'') (collectively the ``Petitioners'' or ``operators'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioners are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2283A1.txt
  • Matter of: Charter Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Two Local Franchise Areas in Wisconsin ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7106-E Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers a petition filed with the Commission by Charter Communications (``Charter'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Charter's cable systems serving Beloit and Janesville, Wisconsin are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The City of Janesville (``Janesville'') opposes the petition with respect to that franchise
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2284A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7060-E CSR 7062-E, 7068-E, 7125-E Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers several petitions which Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Bright House Networks, LLC (collectively ``the Petitioners'' or ``operators'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioners are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-275A1.txt
  • York Cable Television, Inc. Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Pearl and Flowood, MS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7005-E CSR-7013-E Adopted: January 26, 2007 Released: January 30, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION York Cable Television, Inc. d/b/a SusCom (``SusCom'') has filed two petitions with the Commission pursuant to 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable television systems serving Pearl and Flowood, Mississippi (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. No oppositions to the petitions were filed. We grant the petitions finding that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2796A1.txt
  • Cable Associates LLC d/b/a Charter Communications Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Burbank, CA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6949-E Adopted: June 22, 2007 Released: June 26, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION Marcus Cable Associates LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (``Charter'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable television system serving Burbank, California is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and is therefore exempt from rate regulation. No oppositions to the petition were filed. We grant the petition finding that Charter is subject to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2797A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6537-E CSR-6670-E CSR-6671-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 22, 2007 Released: June 26, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction Cablevision of Rockland/Ramapo Inc., CSC TKR, Inc. d/b/a Cablevision of Elizabeth, and Cablevision of Warwick LLC (collectively ``Cablevision'') have filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905 and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Cablevision's cable systems serving Montvale, Elizabeth and West Milford, New Jersey (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Specifically, Cablevision asserts that the competing provider test is met
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2807A1.txt
  • 6849-E, 6870-E & 6875-E Adopted: June 22, 2007 Released: June 26, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction This Order considers several petitions that Adelphia Cable Communications (``Adelphia''), MCC Georgia LLC (``MCC''), Mediacom Arizona LLC (``Mediacom Arizona''), and Mediacom Southeast LLC (``Mediacom Southeast'') (collectively the ``Petitioners'' or ``operators'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioners are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-295A1.txt
  • on a case-by-case basis for those operators or their affiliates that meet the definition of a multichannel video programming distributor in Section 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and that provide MVPD service to five percent or more of the households within their respective geographic service areas (GSAs) (the calculation made in accordance with the requirements Section 76.905(c) of the Commission's Rules). The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for any BRS or EBS licensee that is co-located with any qualified MVPD licensee that elects to opt-out. The Commission further found that it is in the public interest to consider waivers for those BRS licensees that have a viable business for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3136A1.txt
  • (CUID IA0055), Dubuque (CUID IA0011), Epworth (CUID IA0115), Farley (CUID IA0114), Sageville (CUID IA0689) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6600-E Adopted: July 9, 2007 Released: July 11, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in the franchise areas listed in the above caption. Mediacom alleges that its cable systems serving the franchise areas are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3137A1.txt
  • River (CUID MN0443); Prior Lake (CUID MN0441); Spring Lake (CUID MN0442); Webster (CUID MN0734) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6774-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 9, 2007 Released: July 11, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Minnesota (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 76.7 and 76.905 of the Commission's rules, petitions for a determination of effective competition in the following Minnesota communities: Credit River, Prior Lake, Spring Lake, and Webster. Mediacom claims that its cable systems serving those communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3146A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6726-E, 6738-E, 6750-E, 6751-E, 6816-E CSR 6769-E Adopted: July 9, 2007 Released: July 12, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers several petitions which Mediacom Southeast LLC ``Mediacom'' and Mediacom Minnesota LLC ``Mediacom'' (collectively the ``Petitioners'' or ``operators'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioners are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A and B (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3192A1.txt
  • the Matter of Bright House Networks, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Temple Terrace, FL (FL0490) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7034-E Adopted: July 12, 2007 Released: July 13, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Temple Terrace, Florida. Bright House Networks alleges that its cable system serving Temple Terrace is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Bright House claims the presence of effective
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3193A1.txt
  • MN0917); Tyler (CUID MN0150); Stewart (CUID MN0663); Winsted (CUID MN0536) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6801-E, CSR-6772-E, CSR-6786-E, CSR-6779-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 12, 2007 Released: July 13, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 76.7 and 76.905 of the Commission's rules, petitions for a determination of effective competition in the following areas in Minnesota: Grove City, Paynesville, Cook, Tyler, Stewart, and Winsted (the ``Franchise Areas''). Mediacom claims that its cable systems serving those communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and the Commission's implementing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3253A1.txt
  • Trust d/b/a Time Warner Cable Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Platte City, Missouri (MO0075) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6391-E Adopted: July 16, 2007 Released: July 18, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction KCCP Trust d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``KCCP'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Platte City, Missouri (the ``Franchise Area''). KCCP alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(4) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, and therefore is exempt from cable rate regulation. KCCP claims the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3254A1.txt
  • Effective Competition in Ten Local Franchise Areas in Illinois and in Ridgecrest, California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6818-E CSR-6452-E Adopted: July 16, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION Mediacom Illinois LLC and Mediacom California LLC (``Mediacom'') have filed two petitions with the Commission pursuant to 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable television systems serving ten Illinois communities and Ridgecrest, California (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. No oppositions to the petitions were filed. We grant the petitions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3295A1.txt
  • in various California and Illinois Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6505-E CSR-6678-E CSR-6792-E CSR-6826-E CSR-6829-E Adopted: July 17, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION WaveDivision VI, LLC (``WaveDivision''), Mediacom California LLC, and Mediacom Illinois LLC (``Mediacom'') have filed petitions with the Commission pursuant to 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable television systems serving various communities in California and Illinois (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. No oppositions to the petitions were filed. We grant the petitions,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3297A1.txt
  • Long Island Corporation Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in The Village of Massapequa Park, New York ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7011-E Adopted: July 18, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Cablevision Systems Long Island Corporation (``Cablevision'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of local exchange carrier (``LEC'') effective competition in the Village of Massapequa Park, New York (``Massapequa Park'' or ``Village''). Cablevision alleges that its cable system serving Massapequa Park is subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Communications Act''), and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3310A1.txt
  • In the Matter of MEDIACOM SOUTHEAST LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Kentucky Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6909-E, 6910-E Adopted: July 17, 2007 Released: July 20, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Southeast LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving various Kentucky franchise areas are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in those communities. No opposition to the petition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3311A1.txt
  • Matter of Mediacom Southeast LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Kentucky Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6699-E Adopted: July 17, 2007 Released: July 20, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving the City of Sonora, the City of Upton, and the unincorporated areas of Larue County which are adjacent or connected to Upton, Kentucky (the ``Communities''), are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3312A1.txt
  • Matter of Mediacom Minnesota LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Minnesota Local Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6876-E Adopted: July 16, 2007 Released: July 20, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Minnesota, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving various Minnesota communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). Southern Minnesota
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3313A1.txt
  • Florida (``Santa Rosa'') has filed pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's grant of Mediacom Southeast LLC's (``Mediacom'') petition for determination of effective competition in that franchise area. The Bureau granted Mediacom's petition based on its conclusion that Santa Rosa was subject to effective competition, as that term is defined in Section 76.905(b)(2) of Commission rules. Santa Rosa urges reconsideration because of the grant's significant public interest consequences and because of new facts unknown to Santa Rosa until after its last opportunity to comment. As discussed below, we deny Santa Rosa's petition for reconsideration. II. BACKGROUND 2. In its Initial Order, the Bureau found that Mediacom had successfully met its burden of proof
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3314A1.txt
  • the Matter of Bright House Networks, LLC Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Bradenton, FL (CUID FL0183) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7054-E Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 20, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in Brandenton, Florida. Bright House alleges that its cable system serving Brandenton is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, and therefore is exempt from cable rate regulation. Bright House claims the presence of effective competition in this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3334A1.txt
  • Competition in Eight Kentucky Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6866-E Memorandum Opinion AND ORDER Adopted: July 20, 2007 Released: July 23, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Order considers a petition for special relief that Mediacom Southeast, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in seven Kentucky communities (``Franchise Areas'') as listed in Attachment A and B. No opposition was filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3336A1.txt
  • KY (KY1155) Rockcastle, KY (KY1157) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6868-E Memorandum Opinion AND ORDER Adopted: July 20, 2007 Released: July 23, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Order considers a petition for special relief that Mediacom Southeast, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in two Kentucky communities (``Franchise Areas'') as listed in Attachment A. Rockcastle filed an opposition. II. BACKGROUND
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3337A1.txt
  • (KY1122) Whitesville, KY (KY0735) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6871-E Memorandum Opinion AND ORDER Adopted: July 20, 2007 Released: July 23, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Order considers a petition for special relief that Mediacom Southeast, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Medicom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in four Kentucky communities (``Franchise Areas'') as listed in Attachments A and B. No oppositions were filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3338A1.txt
  • KY (KY1116) Russell, KY (KY1117) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6872-E Memorandum Opinion AND ORDER Adopted: July 20, 2007 Released: July 23, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Order considers a petition for special relief that Mediacom Southeast, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in two Kentucky communities (``Franchise Areas'') as listed in Attachment A. No oppositions were filed. II. BACKGROUND
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3339A1.txt
  • (KY0895) Hopkins (KY1205) Nebo (KY0721) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6848-E Memorandum Opinion AND ORDER Adopted: July 20, 2007 Released: July 23, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction 1. This Order considers a petition for special relief that Mediacom Southeast, LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Medicom is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in three Kentucky communities (``Franchise Areas''), as listed in Attachments A and B. No oppositions were filed.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3340A1.txt
  • Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5693 (1993) ("Rate Order"). 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(c)(1). See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, First reports on reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 1164, 1180 (1993); 47 C.F.R. §76.915(a). 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). See MediaOne of Georgia, 12 FCC Rcd 19406 (1997). Twelfth Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, FCC 06-11 at ¶¶ 6, 13, 72-73, 21 FCC Rcd 2503 (rel. March 3, 2006). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). Mediacom Petition at 6. Based on the SBCA data, there are 425 DBS subscribers in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3343A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in Hutchinson (MN0078), Litchfield (MN0050) and Hassen Valley, Minnesota (MN0985) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6338-E Adopted: July 20, 2007 Released: July 23, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Mediacom Minnesota LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 76.7, 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in the Cities of Hutchinson, Litchfield, and Hassen Valley, Minnesota (collectively the ``Franchise Areas''). Mediacom alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Areas are subject to effective competition pursuant to Sections 623(a)(2) and 623(1)(1)(4) of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, and therefore is exempt
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3355A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in 12 Local Franchise Areas in Illinois and Indiana ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6749-E Adopted: July 23, 2007 Released: July 25, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION Mediacom Illinois LLC and Mediacom Indiana LLC (``Mediacom'') have filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable television systems serving 12 Illinois and Indiana communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. No oppositions to the petition were filed. We grant the petitions finding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3356A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in 14 Local Franchise Areas in Illinois ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6812-E Adopted: July 23, 2007 Released: July 25, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION MCC Iowa LLC and Mediacom Illinois LLC (``Mediacom'') have filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that their cable television systems serving 14 Illinois communities (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. No oppositions to the petition were filed. We grant the petition finding that Mediacom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3471A1.txt
  • SHALL AGREE on a mutually satisfactory method of escrow or security to effect, in the event that the Petition for Special Relief herein is denied, the rate reductions and refunds ordered in the City's Resolution No. 83. . FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John B. Norton Deputy Chief Policy Division Media Bureau See generally 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2), (l)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). Petition for Special Relief (``Petition''), filed July 29, 2005; Reply to Opposition of the City of St. Louis, Missouri to Charter's Petition for Special Relief, filed Oct. 20, 2005. Opposition of the City of St. Louis, Missouri to Charter's Petition for Special Relief, filed Sept. 27, 2005. The exhibits filed with the Commission by Charter did not provide the list
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-397A1.txt
  • Act. The following cities have filed oppositions to Comcast's petition: The City of Hialeah (``Hialeah''), the City of Coral Gables (``Coral Gables''), the Town of Medley (``Medley''), the City of Miami (``Miami''), the City of North Miami (``North Miami''), and the City of Opa-Locka, Florida (``Opa-Locka''). Comcast has filed replies. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant franchise areas. Section 623(l) of the Act provides that a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4259A1.txt
  • Inc. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Five Local Franchise Areas in Arizona and California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7226-E Adopted: October 12, 2007 Released: October 16, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Time Warner Cable Inc. (``Time Warner'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Communities. No opposition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4260A1.txt
  • the Matter of MCC Georgia LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Fitzgerald, Georgia (CUID GA0501) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6679-E Adopted: October 12, 2007 Released: October 16, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction MCC Georgia LLC (``MCC'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in the unincorporated areas within the County of Ben Hill, Georgia, which is commonly known as Fitzgerald and is adjacent to the incorporated area of the City of Fitzgerald (``Fitzgerald''). MCC alleges that its cable system serving Fitzgerald is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4261A1.txt
  • and affiliates Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Mississippi Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7196-E Adopted: October 12, 2007 Released: October 16, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction This Order considers a petition which Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (``Comcast'') filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Comcast is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to the petition was filed. Finding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-638A1.txt
  • Matter of Bright House Networks, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Four Florida Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6484-E Adopted: February 27, 2007 Released: March 1, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in four Florida communities. Bright House alleges that its cable system serving the communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing service provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-639A1.txt
  • Various Michigan Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6037-E Adopted: February 27, 2007 Released: March 1, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC (``Millennium'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and Sections 76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission's rules for a determination of effective competition in various communities in Michigan (the ``Communities''). Millennium alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Millennium alleges that its cable systems serving thirty-five Communities are subject to effective competition and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-876A1.txt
  • D.C. 20554 In the Matter of MCC Iowa LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition Jo Daviess, IL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6858-E Adopted: February 27, 2007 Released: February 28, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION MCC Iowa LLC (``Mediacom'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Mediacom's cable system serving the unincorporated, unnamed area of Jo Daviess County, Illinois is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. No opposition to the petition was filed. We grant the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-909A1.txt
  • competition for the City of Gainesville.'' Accordingly, we make no finding about effective competition in that City and dismiss Cox's petition as to it without prejudice. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(l)(1) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. A cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that it does exist. THE city of gainesville AND unincorporated alachua county A threshold dispute between Cox and the City of Gainesville is whether, for purposes of deciding whether competing provider effective competition exists, we should consider the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-910A1.txt
  • LLC (``EchoStar''). No opposition to the petitions was filed. Finding that Cox is subject to effective competition in the listed Communities, we grant the petitions. DISCUSSION In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 623(l)(1) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. A cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present in the relevant franchise area. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if its franchise area is (a) served by at least
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-911A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Plant City, Florida (FL0199) and Tampa, Florida (FL0706) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6925-E Adopted: February 27, 2007 Released: March 1, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Plant City, Florida and Tampa, Florida. Bright House alleges that its cable systems serving the franchise areas are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-912A1.txt
  • In the Matter of SBC Cable Co. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Shelbyville, IN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7014-E Adopted: February 27, 2007 Released: March 1, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION SBC Cable Co. d/b/a SusCom (``SusCom'') has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable television system serving Shelbyville, Indiana (the ``Community'') is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and is therefore exempt from rate regulation. No opposition to the petition was filed. We grant the petition finding that SusCom is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-913A1.txt
  • unincorporated Manatee County, FL (CUIDs FL0067, FL0863, FL0483) and Palmetto, FL (CUID FL0357) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6926-E Adopted: February 27, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction 1. Bright House Networks LLC (``Bright House Networks'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in unincorporated Manatee County, Florida and Palmetto, Florida. Bright House Networks alleges that its cable system serving the captioned areas are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-933A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6877-E CSR 6878-E CSR 6879-E CSR 6880-E CSR 6881-E CSR 6882-E CSR 6883-E CSR 6884-E CSR 6885-E CSR 6886-E Adopted: February 28, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Cox Southwest Holdings, LP (``Cox'') has filed ten unopposed petitions with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Cox is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the ``Communities''). No opposition to any petition was filed. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-940A1.txt
  • in Fort Bragg City, Twentynine Palms City and Yucca Valley Town, CA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6386-E Adopted: March 1, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: InTRODUCTION Adelphia Cable Communications, on behalf of its affiliates (``Adelphia''), has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 for a determination that its cable systems serving three Southern California franchise areas (the ``Franchise Areas'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. No oppositions to the petition were filed. We grant the petition finding that Adelphia is subject
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-941A1.txt
  • Bright House Networks, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Winter Haven, Florida (CUID FL0154) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6546-E Adopted: February 28, 2007 Released: March 5, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Winter Haven, Florida (the ``City''). Bright House alleges that its cable system serving the City is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation because of competing service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-942A1.txt
  • LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Two Local Franchise Areas in Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6839-E Adopted: March 1, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Order considers a petition filed with the Commission by Bright House Networks LLC (``Bright House'') pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Bright House's cable systems serving Pasco County (``Pasco'') and Port Richey, Florida are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. Pasco County opposed the petition with respect to that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-943A1.txt
  • Matter of Bright House Networks, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Various Florida Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6132-E Adopted: February 28, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in five franchise areas in Florida (the ``Communities''). Bright House alleges that its cable system serving four of the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-944A1.txt
  • These locales will be referred to collectively as the ``Communities.'' No opposition to the Cox's petition was filed. After reviewing Cox's filing, we conclude that it has shown that it is subject to competing provider effective competition in each of the Communities. Accordingly, we grant Cox's petition as to the Communities. Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant franchise area. COMPETING PROVIDER EFFECTIVE COMPETITION Competing MVPDs Section 623(l)(1)(B)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-945A1.txt
  • Effective Competition ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6938-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 1, 2007 Released: March 5, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction This Memorandum Opinion and Order considers a Petition for Special Relief (``Petition'') that the cable operator, Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House''), filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules. The Petition seeks a determination that, in two franchise areas in Florida, Bright House is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation. The City of Lake Alfred, Florida (``Lake Alfred'') and the Town of Dundee,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-947A1.txt
  • of: Bright House Networks, LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Various Florida Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6937-E Adopted: March 1, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'') has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding of effective competition in Crystal River (the ``City'') and unincorporated Hernando County, Florida (the ``County'') (collectively, the ``Communities''). Bright House alleges that its cable system serving the communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-963A1.txt
  • provider'' test set forth in Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. The Consolidated City of Indianapolis (the ``City'') filed an opposition with respect to the determination for the Indianapolis, Indiana franchise area only. No oppositions were filed with respect to the effective competition determination for the Carmel, Indiana franchise area. discussion Pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, it is presumed that cable systems do not face effective competition absent a demonstration to the contrary. Consequently, the cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist by producing evidence that shows effective competition is present within the relevant franchise areas. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-966A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in Fullerton and Santa Monica, California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6390-E CSR 6394-E Adopted: March 2, 2007 Released: March 5, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Adelphia Cable Communications, on behalf of its affiliates (``Adelphia''), has filed two petitions with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the rules for a determination that its cable systems serving Fullerton and Santa Monica, California (the ``Franchise Areas'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. Both the City of Fullerton and the City of Santa Monica (the ``Cities'') have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-967A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6927-E Memorandum Opinion AND ORDER Adopted: March 2, 2007 Released: March 5, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction This Order considers a petition for special relief that Time Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner) has filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the community, as listed in Attachment A. The City of Wilson, North Carolina (``Wilson'') filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-968A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Ojai and Palmdale, CA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6387-E Adopted: March 2, 2007 Released: March 5, 2007 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Adelphia Cable Communications, on behalf of its affiliates (``Adelphia''), has filed a petition with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that its cable systems serving four Southern California franchise areas (the ``Franchise Areas'') are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Communications Act''), and are therefore exempt from rate regulation. The City of Beverly Hills (the ``City'') has filed an opposition and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1028A1.txt
  • Effective Competition in Moorpark, California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7710-E Adopted: May 1, 2008 Released: May 2, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner NY Cable LLC (``Time Warner''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the community listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Community.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1032A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7772-E 7774-E 7807-E 7808-E 7810-E 7811-E Adopted: April 30, 2008 Released: May 1, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for determinations that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's implementing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1033A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1033A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1033A1.txt
  • in 27 Communities in California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7768-E 7769-E 7770-E Adopted: April 30, 2008 Released: May 1, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and background COXCOM, INC., d/b/a/ Cox Communications San Diego, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission three petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for determinations that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1036A1.txt
  • CSR 7749-E, CSR 7750-E, CSR 7751-E, CSR 7752-E & CSR 7754-E Adopted: May 1, 2008 Released: May 2, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates (``Comcast''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1037A1.txt
  • ) ) ) CSR7522-E CSR 7524-E CSR 7526-E CSR 7527-E CSR 7529-E CSR 7530-E CSR 7531-E CSR 7532-E CSR 7533-E Adopted: May 1, 2008 Released: May 2, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1038A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) CSR 7458-E CSR 7481-E CSR 7482-E CSR 7484-E CSR 7544-E Adopted: May 1, 2008 Released: May 2, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership , hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioners,'' have filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioners are subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioners allege that their cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1039A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in various Michigan Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7420-E, 7488-E, 7498-E, 7545-E Adopted: May 1, 2008 Released: May 2, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1045A1.txt
  • Effective Competition in Various Texas Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7728-E Adopted: May 7, 2008 Released: May 8, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership (``Time Warner''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1075A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in various Indiana Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7679-E, 7680-E, 7681-E, 7682-E Adopted: May 5, 2008 Released: May 6, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1076A1.txt
  • Effective Competition in Various Pennsylvania Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7726-E CSR 7722-E Adopted: May 7, 2008 Released: May 8, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc. (``Time Warner''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as ``Group B Communities'' are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1089A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) CSR 7711-E CSR 7708-E CSR 7712-E Adopted: May 7, 2008 Released: May 8, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable LLC, Time Warner NY Cable LLC, and CAC Exchange I, LLC hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioners,'' have filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for determinations that Petitioners are subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioners allege that their cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as ``Group B Communities'' are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1099A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) CSR 7460-E CSR 7461-E CSR 7469-E CSR 7472-E CSR 7473-E CSR 7474-E CSR 7476-E CSR 7513-E Adopted: May 8, 2008 Released: May 9, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1100A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in various Indiana Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7595-E, 7602-E, 7683-E, 7684-E Adopted: May 8, 2008 Released: May 9, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1111A1.txt
  • Competition in Various Communities in North and South Carolina ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7393-E, 7397-E, 7398-E Adopted: May 12, 2008 Released: May 13, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission several petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1152A1.txt
  • Competition in various Franchise Areas in Pennsylvania ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7566-E CSR 7569-E CSR 7667-E Adopted: May 14, 2008 Released: May 15, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1160A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Jenkins, Kentucky (CUID KY0051) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7567-E Adopted: May 15, 2008 Released: May 16, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Mikrotec CATV, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1161A1.txt
  • the Town of Oyster Bay, New York (CUID NY0489) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7048-E Adopted: May 15, 2008 Released: May 16, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Cablevision Systems Long Island Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the community listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as the ``Community.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1162A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7479-E & CSR 7480-E Adopted: May 15, 2008 Released: May 16, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates (``Comcast''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1163A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in various Colorado Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7575-E, 7600-E, 7693-E Adopted: May 15, 2008 Released: May 16, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1215A1.txt
  • Adopted: May 28, 2008 Released: May 28, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc., Comcast of Massachusetts III, Inc., Comcast of Massachusetts/New Hampshire/Ohio, Inc., and Comcast of California/Massachusetts/Michigan/Utah, Inc. (collectively ``Comcast''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1216A1.txt
  • & CSR 7505-E CSR 7502-E, CSR 7504-E, CSR 7506-E & CSR 7507-E Adopted: May 28, 2008 Released: May 28, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1218A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Illinois Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7158-E, 7666-E Adopted: May 28, 2008 Released: May 29, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1219A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in various Michigan Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7375-E, 7423-E, 7434-E, 7436-E Adopted: May 28, 2008 Released: May 29, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1224A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in Jackson, Alabama (CUID AL0097) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6666-E Adopted: May 28, 2008 Released: May 29, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Mediacom Southeast LLC (``Mediacom''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the community listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Community.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1255A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Various Franchise Areas in Ohio ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7806-E Adopted: May 29, 2008 Released: May 29, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1262A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7617-E, 7618-E Adopted: May 29, 2008 Released: May 29, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Cablevision of Connecticut, L.P. and Cablevision Systems of Southern Connecticut, L.P. (collectively, ``Cablevision''), hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1263A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in various Ohio Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7715-E, 7716-E, 7760-E, 7791-E Adopted: May 29, 2008 Released: May 29, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1264A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7163-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 29, 2008 Released: May 29, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction and background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (``Comcast''), on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1270A1.txt
  • in California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7186-E CSR-7187-E CSR-7195-E Adopted: May 29, 2008 Released: May 30, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1285A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Various Franchise Areas in Ohio ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7725-E Adopted: June 12, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1286A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Various Franchise Areas in Ohio ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7724-E Adopted: June 12, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1304A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in 25 Pennsylvania Franchise Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7570-E CSR 7571-E Adopted: June 2, 2008 Released: June 3, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1333A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7762-E & CSR 7763-E Adopted: June 5, 2008 Released: June 6, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1334A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7437-E & CSR 7439-E Adopted: June 5, 2008 Released: June 6, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1335A1.txt
  • Effective Competition in various Idaho and Washington Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7593-E, 7594-E, 7603-E Adopted: June 5, 2008 Released: June 6, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner NY Cable LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1396A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) CSR 7730-E, CSR 7775-E & CSR 7777-E Adopted: June 11, 2008 Released: June 12, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission three petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1397A1.txt
  • Competition in various Iowa Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7685-E, 7688-E, 7689-E, 7690-E Adopted: June 11, 2008 Released: June 12, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background MCC Iowa LLC and Mediacom Iowa LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1412A1.txt
  • LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Wisconsin Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7456-E Adopted: June 12, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1413A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR Nos. 7626-E, 7627-E, 7628-E, 7629-E, 7630-E, 7631-E, 7632-E, 7633-E, 7634-E Adopted: June 12, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission nine petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1414A1.txt
  • of Effective Competition in various Ohio Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7704-E, 7705-E, 7713-E, 7714-E, 7718-E Adopted: June 12, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1446A1.txt
  • in various Ohio Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7717-E, 7719-E, 7720-E, 7721-E, 7723-E Adopted: June 19, 2008 Released: June 20, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc. , hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1456A1.txt
  • LLC Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Michigan Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7424-E Adopted: June 19, 2008 Released: June 20, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1473A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in Various North Carolina Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 6834-E Adopted: June 24, 2008 Released: June 25, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Mediacom Southeast LLC , hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1507A1.txt
  • ) ) CSR Nos. 7654-E, 7655-E, 7656-E, 7657-E, 7658-E, 7659-E, 7660-E, 7661-E, 7662-E, 7663-E, 7664-E, 7665-E Adopted: June 25, 2008 Released: June 26, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner'' or ``Comcast,'' has filed with the Commission twelve petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Comcast is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Comcast alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1509A1.txt
  • Determination of Effective Competition in Groton, CT - Area Franchise ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7121-E Adopted: June 26, 2008 Released: June 27, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC , hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1515A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in various Ohio and Indiana Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7706-E, 7779-E, 7780-E, 7781-E Adopted: June 26, 2008 Released: June 26, 2008 By the Associate Chief, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc. hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1563A1.txt
  • County (CUID SC0633) and McClellanville (CUID SC0384), South Carolina ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7394-E Adopted: June 30, 2008 Released: June 30, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1582A1.txt
  • of Effective Competition in various Ohio Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7782-E, 7786-E, 7787-E, 7789-E, 7790-E Adopted: July 2, 2008 Released: July 3, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1593A1.txt
  • (PA0026) Woodward, Pennsylvania (PA0917) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7860-E Adopted: July 3, 2008 Released: July 3, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1594A1.txt
  • in 18 Massachusetts Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7852-E Adopted: July 3, 2008 Released: July 3, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1595A1.txt
  • affiliates Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Oakland, California (CA0589) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7824-E Adopted: July 3, 2008 Released: July 3, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1638A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Michigan and Wisconsin Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7816-E and 7817-E Adopted: July 10, 2008 Released: July 11, 2008 By the Associate Chief, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1639A1.txt
  • Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in various Ohio Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7776-E, 7783-E, 7784-E, 7785-E, 7788-E Adopted: July 10, 2008 Released: July 11, 2008 By the Associate Chief, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1658A1.txt
  • CSR 7403-E CSR 7417-E CSR 7433-E CSR 7435-E CSR 7441-E CSR 7463-E Adopted: July 14, 2008 Released: July 15, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1783A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7900-E CSR 7901-E Adopted: July 29, 2008 Released: July 30, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Cablevision of Wappingers Falls, Inc., and Cablevision Systems Long Island Corp., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for determinations that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's implementing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1786A1.txt
  • James Parish, LA (CUID 0274) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7830-E Adopted: July 30, 2008 Released: July 30, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Charter Communications, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1787A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7855-E Adopted: July 30, 2008 Released: July 30, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates , hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1817A1.txt
  • for Determination of Effective Competition in various Wisconsin Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7820-E and 7821-E Adopted: July 30, 2008 Released: July 31, 2008 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. introduction and Background Time Warner Cable Inc., hereinafter referred to as ``Petitioner,'' has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as ``Communities.'' Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Group B Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1818A1.pdf