Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CSR 7900-E                   |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Cablevision of Wappingers Falls, | ) | CSR 7901-E                   |
| Inc., and Cablevision Systems    | * |                              |
| Long Island Corp.                | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Petitions for Determination of   | * |                              |
| Effective Competition in         | * |                              |
| Wappinger and Roslyn Harbor, New | ) |                              |
| York (CUIDs NY 0308, NY 1473)    | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: July 29, 2008 Released: July 30, 2008**

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

# I. introduction and Background

1.  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")[^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
    New York, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Competitor." 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,[^3] as that
    term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and
    Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules.[^4] 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.[^5] 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.[^6] 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.[^7] 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[^8] and is supported in
    this petition with copies of channel lineups for Competitor.[^9]
    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*.[^10]

5.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted
    sufficient evidence demonstrating that its cable systems serving the
    Communities have met the LEC test and are 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 Cablevision of Wappingers Falls, Inc., and Cablevision
    Systems Long Island Corp. **ARE GRANTED**.

7.  **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that the certification to regulate basic
    cable service rates granted to 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.[^11]

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Steven A. Broeckaert

Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau

**ATTACHMENT A**

**CSR 7900-E, 7901-E**

**COMMUNITIES SERVED BY CABLEVISION OF WAPPINGERS FALLS, INC., AND
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS LONG ISLAND CORP.**

## Communities CUID(s) 

## 

## Wappinger NY 0308

## Roslyn Harbor NY 1473 

[^1]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.

[^4]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.

[^6]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(D).

[^7]: *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*").

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). *See also* Petition in CSR 7900-E at
    12.

[^9]: *See* Petition in CSR 7901-E at Exh. 7.

[^10]: *See Cable Reform Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16. *See
    also* Petition in CSR 7900-E at 2, 6-12.

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.