Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CSR 6506-E                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Adelphia Cable Communications    | ) | CSR 6785-E                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
| MCC Georgia LLC                  | * | CSR 6815-E & 6820-E          |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Mediacom Arizona LLC             | * | CSR 6767-E, 6849-E, 6870-E & |
|                                  | * | 6875-E                       |
| Mediacom Southeast LLC           | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Petition for Determination of    | * |                              |
| Effective Competition in various |   |                              |
| Alabama, Arizona, Florida,       | * |                              |
| Georgia, and Tennessee           | * |                              |
| Communities                      | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
|                                  |   |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: June 22, 2007 Released: June 26, 2007**

By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:

# I. introduction

1.  This Order considers several petitions that Adelphia Cable
    Communications ("Adelphia"),[^1] 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\")[^2] and the Commission's
    implementing rules,[^3] and are therefore exempt from cable rate
    regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the
    "Communities"). No opposition to any petition was filed.[^4] Finding
    that the Petitioners are subject to effective competition in the
    listed Communities, we grant the petitions.

2.  In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are
    presumed not to be subject to effective competition,[^5] as that
    term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission\'s rules.[^6] 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.[^7]

# II. DISCUSSION

**A. Competing Provider Effective Competition**

3.  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 two unaffiliated multi-channel video
    programming distributors ("MVPD"), each of which offers comparable
    video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the
    franchise area; and (b) the number of households subscribing to
    programming services offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD
    exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.[^8]
    Turning to the first prong of this test, we find that the DBS
    service of DirecTV Inc. ("DirecTV") and DISH Network ("DISH") is
    presumed to be technically available due to its nationwide satellite
    footprint, and presumed to be actually available if households in a
    franchise area are made reasonably aware that the service is
    available.[^9] The two DBS providers' subscriber growth reached
    approximately 26.1 million as of June 2005, comprising approximately
    27.7 percent of all MVPD subscribers nationwide; DirecTV was the
    second largest, and DISH the third largest, MVPD provider during
    that period.[^10] In view of this DBS growth data, and the data
    discussed below showing that more than 15 percent of the households
    in each of the communities listed on Attachment A relating to the
    competing provider test are DBS subscribers, we conclude that the
    population of the communities at issue here may be deemed reasonably
    aware of the availability of DBS services for purposes of the first
    prong of the "competing provider" test. With respect to the issue of
    program comparability, we find that the programming of the DBS
    providers satisfies the Commission\'s program comparability
    criterion because the DBS providers offer substantially more than 12
    channels of video programming, including more than one non‑broadcast
    channel.[^11] We further find that the operators have demonstrated
    that the Communities set forth in Attachment A are served by at
    least two unaffiliated MVPDs, namely the two DBS providers, each of
    which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of
    the households in the franchise area. Therefore, the first prong of
    the "competing provider" test is satisfied.

4.  The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the
    number of households subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest
    MVPD, exceed 15 percent of the households in a franchise area.
    Petitioners sought to determine the competing provider penetration
    in the Communities by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from
    the SBCA that identified the number of subscribers attributable to
    the DBS providers within the Communities on a zip code basis.[^12]
    The Petitioners state that they are the largest MVPD in some
    instances,[^13] however, they argue that even in those communities
    where they are not the largest MVPD or are otherwise unable to
    determine the largest MVPD because the number of DBS subscribers for
    DirecTV and Dish are aggregated and exceed the number of the
    Petitioners' subscribers, they still satisfy the second prong of the
    competing provider test.[^14] In the instances where the
    Petitioners' are not able to determine the largest MVPD, we are
    still able to conclude that the second prong is met by analyzing the
    data submitted for both the Petitioners' and DBS providers.[^15]

5.  Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels as
    reflected in Attachment A, calculated using 2000 Census household
    data, we find that Petitioners have demonstrated that the number of
    households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs,
    other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in
    these Communities. Therefore, the second prong of the competing
    provider test is satisfied. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that
    Petitioners have submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that
    its cable systems serving the communities set forth in Attachment A
    are subject to effective competition under the competing provider
    analysis.

    **B. Low Penetration Effective Competition**

6.  Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable
    operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt
    from cable rate regulation, if "fewer than 30 percent of the
    households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of
    the cable system."[^16] Mediacom Arizona and Mediacom Southeast
    provided information showing that less than 30 percent of the
    households within the franchise areas set forth in Attachment B
    subscribe to their cable services.[^17] Accordingly, we conclude
    that Mediacom Arizona and Mediacom Southeast have demonstrated the
    existence of "low penetration" effective competition in the
    franchise areas set forth in Attachment B pursuant to our rules.

# III. ordering clauses

7.  Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that the petitions filed by Adelphia
    Cable Communications, MCC Georgia LLC, Mediacom Arizona LLC, and
    Mediacom Southeast LLC listed on Attachments A and B for a
    determination of effective competition in the Communities listed
    thereon **ARE GRANTED**.

8.  **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that the certification to regulate basic
    cable service rates granted to the local franchising authorities
    overseeing Adelphia Cable Communications, MCC Georgia LLC, Mediacom
    Arizona LLC, and Mediacom Southeast LLC **ARE** **REVOKED**.

9.  This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under Section
    0.283 of the Commission's rules.[^18]

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Steven A. Broeckaert

Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau

**Attachment A**

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS**

**CSR 6506-E**

**2000 Estimated**

**Census DBS**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

Friendsville TN0325 20.72% 362 75

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY MCC GEORIGA LLC**

**CSR 6785-E**

**2000 Estimated**

**Census DBS**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

Cataula GA0770 29.23% 7804 2281

Ellerslie GA0772

Forston GA0773

Mulberry Grove GA0771

Shenandoah GA0774

Harris County GA0823

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY MEDIACOM ARIZONA LLC**

## CSR 6815-E

**2000 Estimated**

**Census DBS**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

City of Nogales AZ0010 20.15% 5985 1206

**CSR 6820-E**

**2000 Estimated**

**Census DBS**

## Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^ 

##  

## City of Apache AZ0210 43.38% 13775 5976

Junction

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY MEDIACOM SOUTHEAST LLC**

**CSR 6767-E**

**2000 Estimated**

**Census DBS**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

Greensboro AL0121 30.21% 1026 310

Hale AL0335 31.69% 6415 2033

**CSR 6849-E**

**2000 Estimated**

**Census DBS**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

Lincoln County TN0313 32.50% 12503 4064

Ardmore TN0264

Ardmore County TN0265 31.37% 11713 3674

Elkton TN0268

Ardmore TN0276 20.50% 24688 5062

Town of Ardmore AL0275 24.13% 460 111

City of Ardmore TN0266 22.95% 427 98

**CSR 6870-E**

**2000 Estimated**

**Census DBS**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

Bonifay FL0524 17.81% 1095 195

Holmes FL1138 17.89% 6921 1238

Vernon FL0811 21.96% 296 65

Walton FL0647 27.12% 16548 4487

\*CPR = Percent of DBS penetration rate.

\+ = See Cable Operator Petitions

**Attachment B**

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY MEDIACOM ARIZONA LLC**

**CSR 6815-E**

> **2000**

**Census Cable**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

Rio Rico AZ0037 11.88% 11809 1403

Santa Cruz AZ0052

**CSR 6820-E**

> **2000**

**Census Cable**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

## Pinal AZ0276 6.21% 61364 3809

Gold Canyon AZ0325

Queen Valley AZ0326

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY MEDIACOM SOUTHEAST LLC**

**CSR 6875-E**

> **2000**

**Census Cable**

**Communities CUIDS CPR\* Households^+^ Subscribers^+^**

Madison AL0345 12.56% 109955 13807

Harvest AL0373

Limestone AL0414 0.54% 24688 134

[^1]: Comcast Corporation and Time Warner recently acquired the assets
    of Adelphia Communications Corporation. *In the Matter of
    Applications for Consent to the Assignment and/or Transfer of
    Control of Licenses: Adelphia Communications Corporation (and
    subsidiaries, debtors-in-possession), Asssignors to Time Warner
    Cable Inc. (subsidiaries), Assignees; Adelphia Communications
    Corporation (and subsidiaries, debtors-in-possession), Assignors and
    Transferors to Comcast Corporation (subsidiaries), Assignees and
    Transferrees; Comcast Corporation, Transferor, to Time Warner, Inc.;
    Transferree; Time Warner, Inc., Transferor, to Comcast Corporation,
    Transferree*, 21 FCC Rcd 8203 (2006). As part of that proceeding,
    the parties requested that the Commission's grant of its consent to
    the transactions include and accommodate, as appropriate,
    applications that will have been filed by such licensees relating to
    such cable systems that are pending at the time of the consummation
    of the transactions. In this matter, we also will take that to
    include pending petitions for effective competition. Therefore, the
    action we take in this proceeding will transfer to the
    successor-in-interest, either Comcast or Time Warner, as it relates
    to these franchise areas.

[^2]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).

[^4]: On February 23, 2007, the Commission sent letters to various cable
    operators, including the above-captioned Mediacom petitions (MCC
    Georgia CSR 6785-E; Mediacom Arizona CSR 6815-E and 6820-E; and
    Mediacom Southeast CSRs 6767-E, 6849-E, 6870-E and 6875-E),
    informing them of a deficiency in their petitions for effective
    competition. The letter noted that the Satellite Broadcasting and
    Communications Association ("SBCA") report submitted listed the
    number of DBS subscribers in the franchise area but failed to list
    the corresponding zip codes. The letter explained that the exclusion
    of the zip codes prevents affected local franchising authorities
    from ascertaining whether SBCA data accurately reflects the
    franchise area, and raises questions regarding the accuracy of the
    number of DBS subscribers in the franchise area. Cable operators
    were given 30 days to supplement their petition by supplying the
    missing zip code information. Local franchising authorities were
    permitted to supplement any existing opposition or file an
    opposition based on supplemental data within 50 days from the date
    of the Commission's letter. The above-captioned cable operator,
    Mediacom, filed the requested information for the above-captioned
    petitions. No opposition to Mediacom's filing has been received by
    the Commission.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.

[^6]: *See* U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).

[^9]: *See* *MediaOne of Georgia*, 12 FCC Rcd 19406 (1997).

[^10]: *Twelfth Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the
    Market for the Delivery of Video Programming*, FCC 06-11 at ¶¶ 6,
    13, 72-73, 21 FCC Rcd 2503 (rel. March 3, 2006).

[^11]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g).

[^12]: The Petitioners provided SBCA zip code plus four reports in
    support of their petitions, except for Adelphia Petition CSR 6506-E,
    which provided a five digit zip code report from Media Business
    Corp.

[^13]: Adelphia Petition at 6 (CSR 6506-E); Mediacom Arizona Petition at
    6 (CSR 6815-E); Mediacom Southeast Petition at 6 (CSR 6767-E)
    (Greensboro); ^?^ Mediacom Southeast Petition at 6--7 (CSR 6849-E)
    (Ardmore, TN); Mediacom Southeast Petition at 6 (CSR 6870-E)
    (Bonifay, Vernon, Walton).

[^14]: MCC Petition at 6 (CSR 6785-E); Mediacom Arizona Petition at 6
    (CSR 6820-E); Mediacom Southeast Petition at 6 (CSR 6767-E) (Hale);
    ^?^ Mediacom Southeast Petition at 6-7 (CSR 6849-E) (Ardmore, AL,
    Elton, TN, Lincoln, TN); Mediacom Southeast Petition at 6 (CSR
    6870-E) (Holmes).

[^15]: If the subscriber penetration for both the cable operator and the
    aggregate DBS information each exceed 15 percent in the franchise
    area, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.
    *See* *Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership, et
    al.*, 17 FCC Rcd 23587, 23559 (MB 2002).

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A).

[^17]: Mediacom Arizona Petitions CSR 6815-E and 6820-E and Mediacom
    Southeast Petition CSR 6875-E.

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.