Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1115
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
CoxCom, Inc. d/b/a/ Cox 
Communications Tucson
Petition for Determination of Effective
Competition
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7081-E
CSR 7082-E
CSR 7083-E
CSR 7084-E
CSR 7085-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 8, 2007 Released:  March 9, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. CoxCom, Inc. d/b/a/ Cox Communications Tucson (Cox) has filed a petition with the 
Commission for determinations of effective competition in 16 Arizona franchise areas (the 
Communities)1 pursuant to Section 623(a) of the Communications Act2 and the Commission's 
implementing rules.3 Cox alleges that its cable systems serving these communities are subject to effective 
competition and, therefore, are exempt from cable rate regulation.  Specifically, Cox claims that the 
effective competition present in the Communities arises from the competing services provided by two 
unaffiliated direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. and EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C.  As 
a result, Cox asserts that it is subject to effective competition in these franchise areas under the 
competing provider test or the low penetration test set forth in Sections 623(1)(1)(A) and (B) of the 
Communications Act.  No opposition to the petition was filed.  Finding that Cox is subject to effective 
competition in the franchise areas, we grant the petition.
  
1See Petition at 1-3.  The communities are: AZ0216 (South Tucson), AZ0190 (Davis-Monthan AFB), AZ0134 and 
AZ0130 (Green Valley, Unincorp. Pima), AZ0250 (Santa Rita Bel Aire), AZ0281 (Pima County-Tucson) in Pima 
County, Arizona (CSR-7081-E); AZ0046 (Huachuca City), AZ0088 (Tombstone), AZ0248 (Coronado/Whetstone), 
AZ0060 and AZ0258 (Sierra Vista Unincorp. a/k/a SE Sierra Vista/Nicksville) in Cochise County, Arizona (CSR-
7082-E); AZ0038 (Willcox), AZ0066 (Benson), AZ0280 (St. David), and AZ0251 (Sunsites) in Cochise County, 
Arizona (CSR-7083-E); AZ0011 (Douglas), AZ0300 (Douglas Unincorp. a/k/a Pirtleville) in Cochise County, 
Arizona (CSR-7084-E); and AZ0056 (Pategonia) in Santa Cruz County, Arizona (CSR-7085-E).   In an addendum 
filed December 5, 2006 Cox added CUID No. AZ0281 (Pima County-Tucson), which uses the same physical system 
as the communities of South Tucson, Davis-Monthan AFB, Green Valley, and Santa Rita Bel Aire. 
247 U.S.C.  543(a).
347 C.F.R.  76.905(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1115 
2
II. DISCUSSION
A. Competing Provider Effective Competition
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)(1) of the Communications Act5
and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules.6 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.7  
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 offer comparable 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  
4. Turning to the first prong of this test, DBS service is presumed to be technically available 
due to its nationwide satellite footprint, and presumed to be actually available if households in the
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 has become the second largest, and EchoStar has 
become the third largest, MVPD provider.10 Because the two DBS providers have a nationwide footprint 
and serve well over 20 percent of all MVPD subscribers nationwide, we believe these statistics support 
the presumption that Coxs franchise areas are within their satellite footprint.  Moreover, Cox has 
provided sufficient evidence of DBS advertising in local, regional, and national media that serves the 
franchise areas.11 We conclude that the population of the franchise areas may be deemed reasonably 
aware of the availability of DBS services for the purposes of the first prong of the competing provider 
test.  With respect to the issue of program comparability, we find that the DBS providers programming 
satisfies the Commission's program comparability criterion because DirecTV and EchoStar offer more 
than 12 channels of video programming, including more than one non-broadcast channel.12  We find 
further that Cox has demonstrated that the franchise areas 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 Communities.  Therefore, the first prong of the competing provider test is 
satisfied.
  
4 47 C.F.R.  76.906.
5 47 U.S.C.  543(l)(1).
6 47 C.F.R.  76.905(b).
7 See 47 C.F.R.  76.906 & 76.907(b).
8 47 U.S.C.  543(l)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(2).
9 See MediaOne of Georgia, 12 FCC Rcd 19,406 (1997).
10See Twelfth Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
FCC 06-11, 21 FCC Rcd 2503 at  6, 13, 72-73 (rel. March 3, 2006).
11See Petition at 6-7 and Exhibits 3 (National and Local Advertising and Marketing Material, DirecTV and Dish 
Network) and 4 (DBS Retailers). 
12See 47 C.F.R.  76.905(g); see also Petition at 5 (providing that DirecTV and EchoStar offer more than 200 
channels of broadcast and nonbroadcast video programming) & Exhibit 2 (the Channel Line-ups of DirectTV and 
EchoStar). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1115 
3
5. The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the number of households 
subscribing to MVPDs other the largest MVPD exceeds 15 percent of the households in a franchise area.  
Cox asserts it is the largest MVPD in certain franchise areas where it claims to be subject to competing 
provider effective competition.13  Cox adds that it is unable to determine which MVPD is the largest in 
other areas, where only aggregate DTH subscriber data is available.14  However, it claims to be subject to 
competing provider competition in these communities because DBS penetration exceeds 15 percent of 
occupied households, and because the number of Cox subscribers also exceeds 15 percent of the occupied 
households, as reported by the 2000 Census.15
6. Cox determined the competing provider penetration levels in the franchise areas by 
applying a five-digit zip code allocation method.16 To calculate the DBS firms subscribership in each 
franchise area, Cox purchased an Effective Competition Tracking Report (ECTR)from the Satellite 
Broadcasting and Communications Association (SBCA).  The SBCA reports the total DBS and DTH 
subscribers for the relevant zip codes in Coxs franchise areas.17 To account for differences between the 
zip code boundaries used in the ECTR and the specific boundaries of the franchise areas, Cox multiplied 
the SBCA zip code data by derived allocation percentages to estimate the number of DBS and DTH 
subscribers within the franchise areas.
7. To calculate the allocation percentages, Cox divided the number of occupied households 
in each community by the number of occupied households in the five-digit zip code areas located either 
wholly or partially within the community. Cox obtained occupied household data for each of the five-
digit zip codes located partially or wholly in each franchise area, and for most of the communities, from 
the 2000 U.S. Census.18  In three franchise areas where community-level census data was unavailable,
Cox estimated the number of occupied households for each franchise area by adjusting the number of 
homes passed by Cox cable systems as of September 30, 2006, reported in Cox corporate records, for the 
county-wide vacancy rates reported by the 2000 U.S. Census.19  The resulting allocation percentages were 
  
13 Petition at 8 & Exhibit 5 (Cox Customers Served in the Communities), Addendum at 2.  Cox asserts that it has 
more subscribers than the aggregate total of DBS customers in each of the following communities:  Pima County-
Tucson, South Tucson, Green Valley/Unincorp. Pima, Douglas, and Douglas Unincorp. a/k/a Pirtleville.  
14 Petition at 8.  The communities are: Huachuca City, Tombstone, Coronado/Whetstone, Sierra Vista Unincorp. 
a/k/a SE Sierra Vista/Nicksville, Willcox, Benson, St. David, Sunsites, and Patagonia.
15 Petition at 9.  The Commission has recognized that where aggregate DBS penetration and cable operator 
penetration each exceed 15 percent in the franchise area, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.  
See Adelphia Communications, et al., 19 FCC Rcd 18724 at  4 (Med. Bur. 2004) (citing Time Warner 
Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership, et al., 17 FCC Rcd 23587, 23589 (Med. Bur. 2002)).
16 Petition at 10-13 & n.36 (citing, e.g., Amzak Cable Midwest, Inc. and Minnesota Cable Properties, Inc. Petition 
for Determination of Effective Competition in Eleven Minnesota Communities, 19 FCC Rcd. 6208,  6, 11-13 
(2004);  Texas Cable Partners, L.P., Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Eleven Texas 
Communities, 19 FCC Rcd. 6213,  7-9 (2004)).
17 Petition at 9 & Exhibit 6 (Effective Competition Tracking Report). 
18 Exhibit 1 (2000 Census Data by City and Zip Code and Excerpts from Census Bureau Definitions of Subject 
Characteristics). See also Declaration of Veronica Lingenfelter, Quality Consultant, Southern Arizona, Cox 
Communications, reporting that responsible base officials counted 996 occupied housing units and 1,256 total 
housing units on Davis-Monthan AFB. 
19 Census data was unavailable for Sunsites, Santa Rita Bel Aire, and Pima County-Tucson.  See Petition at 11-12 & 
Declaration of Michael A. DiMaria, Director of Government Relations, Southern Arizona, Cox Communications, 
and Addendum at 2-4.  See also Cable TV Del Noroeste, 13 FCC Rcd 12512, 12516 at  8, 11 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 
1998) (We find that Cable TV's determination of current subscribers based upon its audit of households in the 
franchise area is an acceptable and reliable method of determining a cable operator's penetration rate.); Americable 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1115 
4
then applied to the number of DBS subscribers reported in the ECTR to calculate the total number of 
DBS and DTH subscribers in each franchise area. The number of subscribers, divided by the number of 
occupied households, yields the DBS subscriber penetration level for the corresponding franchise area.20
8. Based upon the DBS subscriber penetration levels, we find that Cox has 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 the Communities listed in Attachment A, 
Competing Provider Test. Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.  
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Cox has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that its 
cable systems serving the Communities set forth in Attachment A, Competing Provider Test, are 
subject to competing provider effective competition.
B. Low Penetration Effective Competition
9. 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 a cable system."21 For the Communities 
listed in Attachment A, Low Penetration Test, Cox provided information showing that fewer than 30 
percent of the households within the franchise areas subscribe to its cable service. Based on this record, 
we conclude that Cox has demonstrated the existence of low penetration effective competition under our 
rules in the listed Communities.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for Determination of Effective 
Competition in the Arizona Franchise Areas, as set forth in Attachments A and B, filed by CoxCom, Inc. 
d/b/a/ Cox Communications Tucson ARE GRANTED.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certifications to regulate basic cable service rates 
granted to any of the local franchising authorities in the related Arizona Franchise Areas overseeing 
CoxCom, Inc. d/b/a/ Cox Communications Tucson ARE REVOKED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Deputy Chief, Policy Division
Media Bureau
  
(...continued from previous page)
International Arizona, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 11588  12, 15 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1996) (accepting current data from 
alternative sources when Census data is unavailable).
20 Petition at 8 & Exhibit 6 (Competing Provider Franchise Allocation and Penetration Calculations and Chart of 
Communities and Associated Residential Zip Codes).
21 47 U.S.C  543(l)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1115 
5
ATTACHMENT A
File Numbers CSR 7081-E, CSR 7082-E, CSR 7083-E, 
CSR 7084-E, and CSR 7085-E
FRANCHISE AREAS SERVED BY COXCOM, INC. 
d/b/a Cox Communications Tucson
COMPETING PROVIDER TEST
FRANCHISE AREA 
COMMUNITY
OCCUPIED 
HOUSEHOLDS22
DBS 
CUSTOMERS 
(Allocated)
DBS COMPETING 
PROVIDER 
PENETRATION
Cochise County:
Huachuca City 713 458.9 64.4%
Tombstone 694 436.3 62.9%
Willcox 1,383 985.3 71.2%
Benson 2,084 1,249.8 60.0%
Douglas 4,526 1,315.2 29.1%
Coronado/Whetstone 904 581.8 64.4%
SE Sierra Vista/Nicksville 5,392 2,153.5 39.9%
St. David 666 387.3 58.2%
Douglas Unincorp. (Pirtleville) 454 131.9 29.1%
Sunsites 494 362.8 73.4%
Pima County:
South Tucson 1,810 321 17.7%
Green Valley 9,995 2,309.7 23.1%
Pima County-Tucson 16,244 3,926.7 24.2%
Santa Cruz County:
Pategonia 404 224.1 55.5%
LOW PENETRATION TEST
FRANCHISE AREA 
COMMUNITY
OCCUPIED 
HOUSEHOLDS
COX CUSTOMERS23 TOTAL COX 
PENETRATION
Cochise County:
Coronado/Whetstone 904 219 24.2%
Sunsites 494 125 25.3%
Pima County:
South Tucson 1,810 493 27.2%
Davis-Monthan AFB 996 196 19.7%
Santa Rita Bel Aire 345 19 5.5%
Santa Cruz County:
Pategonia 404 97 24.0%
  
22 See Petition at Exhibit 1 & Addendum at Attachment 4.
23 Petition at Exhibit 5 (Cox Customers Served in the Communities).