Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CSR 7079-E                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Subsidiaries of Cablevision      | ) | CSR 7080-E                   |
| Systems Corporation              | * |                              |
|                                  | * | CSR 7735-E                   |
| Petition for Determination of    |   |                              |
| Effective Competition in         | * | CSR 7741-E                   |
| Communities in New York State    | * |                              |
|                                  | ) | CSR 7742-E                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * | CSR 7793-E                   |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * | CSR 7794-E                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) | CSR 7795-E                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * | CSR 7796-E                   |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: April 16, 2008 Released: April 16, 2008**

By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:

# I. introduction and Background

1.  Cablevision Systems Corporation, through several subsidiaries,
    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")[^1] and the Commission's implementing
    rules,[^2] and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in
    the Communities because of the competing service provided by
    Verizon, hereinafter referred to as "Competitor."[^3] The petitions
    are unopposed.

2.  In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are
    presumed not to be subject to effective competition,[^4] as that
    term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and
    Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules.[^5] 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.[^6] For the reasons
    set forth below, we grant the Petitions based on our finding that
    Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities
    listed on Attachment A.

# II. DISCUSSION

3.  Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable
    operator is subject to effective competition if a local exchange
    carrier ("LEC"), or its affiliate, offers video programming services
    directly to subscribers by any means (other than direct-to-home
    satellite services) in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable
    operator which is providing cable service in that franchise area,
    but only if the video programming services offered in that area are
    comparable to the video programming services provided by the
    competing unaffiliated cable operator.[^7] This test is otherwise
    referred to as the "LEC" test.

4.  The Commission has stated that the incumbent cable operator must
    show that the LEC intends to build-out its cable system within a
    reasonable period of time if it has not completed its build-out;
    that no regulatory, technical, or other impediments to household
    service exist; that the LEC is marketing its services so that
    potential customers are aware that the LEC's services may be
    purchased; that the LEC has actually begun to provide services; the
    extent of such services; the ease with which service may be
    expanded; and the expected date for completion of construction in
    the franchise area.[^8] It is undisputed that these Communities are
    served by both Petitioner and Competitor, a local exchange carrier,
    and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated. The "comparable
    programming" element is met if a competing MVPD provider offers at
    least 12 channels of video programming, including at least one
    channel of nonbroadcast service programming[^9] and is supported in
    this petition with copies of channel lineups for Competitor.[^10]
    Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated that the Competitor has
    commenced providing video programming service within the
    Communities, has marketed its services in a manner that makes
    potential subscribers reasonably aware of its services, and
    otherwise satisfied the LEC effective competition test consistent
    with the evidentiary requirements set forth in the *Cable Reform
    Order*.[^11]

5.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted
    sufficient evidence demonstrating that its cable system serving the
    Communities has met the LEC test and is subject to effective
    competition.

# III. ordering clauses 

6.  Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that the petitions for a
    determination of effective competition filed in the captioned
    proceeding by the subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corporation
    **ARE GRANTED**.

7.  **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that the certification to regulate basic
    cable service rates granted to, or exercised on behalf of, any of
    the Communities set forth on Attachment A **IS REVOKED**.

8.  This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to
    Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules.[^12]

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Steven A. Broeckaert

Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau

**ATTACHMENT A**

**CSR 7079-E, CSR 7080-E, CSR 7735-E, CSR 7741-E, CSR 7742-E, CSR
7793-E, CSR 7794-E, CSR 7795-E, CSR 7796-E**

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY SUBSIDIARIES OF CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
CORPORATION**

## Communities CUID(S) 

## 

**CSR 7079-E**

Village of Upper Nyack NY0869

Village of Grandview-On-Hudson NY0873

Town of Clarkstown NY0449

**CSR 7080-E**

Village of Laurel Hollow NY0664

Village of Lynbrook NY0940

Village of Cedarhurst NY0924

**CSR 7735-E**

Larchmont NY0902

Rye NY0814

Pelham Manor NY0804

Town of Mamaroneck NY0901

Village of Mamaroneck NY0900

**CSR 7741-E**

Malverne NY1186

Stewart Manor NY0748

Centre Island NY1551

East Williston NY0290

**CSR 7742-E**

Branch NY0667

**CSR 7793-E**

Sleepy Hollow NY0735

Briarcliff Manor NY0734

**CSR 7794-E**

Town of Ossining NY0733

Village of Ossining NY0736

**CSR 7795-E**

Huntington Bay NY0653

**CSR 7796-E**

## Oyster Bay Cove NY1134 

##  

[^1]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).

[^3]: Cablevision states that, in several Communities, its cable rates
    have never been regulated, but that it is petitioning to be free of
    rate regulation because "Verizon's provision of cable service \[in
    those Communities\] . . . removes any doubt regarding the absence of
    authority to regulate Cablevision's rates" in those Communities.
    *See, e.g.,* Petition in CSR 7741-E at 4 n.6; Petition in CSR 7793-E
    at 4 n.6. We find no flaw in Cablevision's reasoning and filing
    petitions concerning Communities where there is no present
    regulation. Accordingly, we will rule on its Petitions for those
    Communities.

    Cablevision also states that in some of the Communities, its cable
    rates are regulated not by Community-specific bodies, but by the New
    York Public Service Commission or by multi-Community regulatory
    bodies. *See, e.g.,* Petition in CSR 7735-E at 4; Petition in CSR
    7742-E at 4. Accordingly, in paragraph 7, *infra*, we revoke
    authority to regulate basic cable rates of both those Communities
    and other regulatory bodies.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.

[^5]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.

[^7]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(D).

[^8]: *See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, 14 FCC Rcd 5296, 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16
    (1999) ("*Cable Reform Order*").

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). *See also* Petition in CSR 7079-E at
    11; Petition in CSR 7794-E at 13.

[^10]: *See* Petition in CSR 7080-E at 11-12 & Exh. 8; Petition in CSR
    7795-E at 13-14 & Exh. 8.

[^11]: *See Cable Reform Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16. *See
    also* Petition in CSR 7796-E at 6-13.

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.