Federal Communications Commission DA 08-891
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corporation
Petition for Determination of Effective 
Competition in Communities in New York State
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
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
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 Commissions 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 
Commissions 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 Commissions 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 
  
1See 47 U.S.C.  543(a)(1).
247 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 Verizons provision of cable service [in those Communities] . . . removes any 
doubt regarding the absence of authority to regulate Cablevisions 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 Cablevisions 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.
447 C.F.R.  76.906.
5See 47 U.S.C.  543(l) and 47 C.F.R.  76.905.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-891 
2
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 LECs 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 programming9 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.
  
6See 47 C.F.R.  76.906 & 907.
7See 47 U.S.C.  543(l)(D).
8See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd 5296, 
5305-06,  13-16 (1999) (Cable Reform Order).
9See 47 C.F.R.  76.905(g).  See also Petition in CSR 7079-E at 11; Petition in CSR 7794-E at 13.
10See Petition in CSR 7080-E at 11-12 & Exh. 8; Petition in CSR 7795-E at 13-14 & Exh. 8.
11See Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06,  13-16.  See also Petition in CSR 7796-E at 6-13.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-891 
3
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 
Commissions rules.12
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
1247 C.F.R.  0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-891 
4
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