Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2284
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of:
Bright House Networks
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Petitions for Determination of Effective 
Competition in various Alabama, Arkansas and 
Illinois Communities
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7060-E
CSR 7062-E, 7068-E, 7125-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Order considers several petitions which Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and 
Bright House Networks, LLC (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"),1 and the Commission's implementing rules,2 and are
therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the 
Communities). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that 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,3 as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 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
  
1 47 U.S.C.  543(1).
2 47 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(4).
3 47 C.F.R.  76.906.
4 See 47 U.S.C.  543(1) and 47 C.F.R.  76.905.
5 See 47 C.F.R.  76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2284
2
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.6 Turning to the first prong of this test, we find that the DBS service of 
DirecTV Inc. (DirectTV) 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.7  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 
the period.8 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.9 We further find that the operators have demonstrated that these communities 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.  The Petitioners sought to determine the competing provider penetration in the Communities by 
purchasing a subscriber tracking report from the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association 
(SBCA) that identified the number of subscribers attributable to the DBS providers within the 
Communities on a zip code basis. Bright House asserts that it is the largest MVPD serving the Eufaula 
franchise area.10  Comcast asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the majority of the Communities because 
its subscribership exceeds the aggregate DBS subscribership for those franchise areas.11 With respect to 
the communities of Alexander, Bryant, and Pulaski County, Arkansas, Comcast asserts that it cannot 
determine the largest MVPD in these communities because the SBCA aggregates the number of 
subscribers for the DBS subscribers and this number is larger than the Comcast subscribers in these 
  
6 47 U.S.C.  543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(2).
7 See MediaOne of Georgia, 12 FCC Rcd 19406 (1997).
8 Twelfth Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, FCC 
06-11 at  6, 13, 72-73, 21 FCC Rcd 2503 (rel. March 3, 2006). 
9See 47 C.F.R.  76.905(g). 
10 Bright House Petition at 7-8.
11 Comcast Petitions at 5-6 (for CSRs 7062-E, 7068-E, 7125-E).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2284
3
communities.12 With regard to these communities, we are able to conclude that this portion of the test is 
met by analyzing the data submitted.  The aggregate penetration rate for DBS, as well as the penetration 
rate for Comcast, exceeds 15 percent in each of these franchise areas and Comcasts penetration rate 
exceeds 24 percent in each of these three franchise areas.13  
5. With regard to the communities of Channahon, Minooka, Plainfield, Romeoville, and 
Wadsworth, Comcast contends that while it is not the largest MVPD in these franchise areas, it still has 
satisfied the second prong of the competing provider test for them.14  Comcast 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 Comcast subscribers also exceeds 15 percent of the 
occupied households, as reported by the 2000 Census.15 Comcast 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, Comcast purchased an Effective 
Competition Tracking Report (ECTR) from the SBCA. The SBCA reports the total DBS and DTH 
subscribers for the relevant zip codes in Comcasts franchise area.17 To account for differences between
the zip code boundaries used in the ECTR and the specific boundaries of the franchise areas, Comcast 
multiplied the SBCA zip code data by derived allocation percentages to estimate the number of DBS and 
DTH subscribers within the franchise areas.
6. 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 the Communities.  Therefore, the second prong of the 
competing provider test is satisfied.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioners Comcast and 
Bright House have submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that its cable systems serving the 
Communities set forth on Attachment A are subject to effective competition under the competing 
provider analysis. 
B. Low Penetration Effective Competition 
7. 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.18 Comcast provided 
information showing that less than 30 percent of the households within the Grundy County franchise area 
subscribe to its cable services.  Accordingly, we conclude that Comcast has demonstrated the existence 
of low penetration effective competition in Grundy County pursuant to our rules.  
  
12 Comcast Petition (CSR 7062-E) at 5-6.
13 Id.  See Declaration of Peter Feinberg, dated November 13, 2006. 
14 Comcast Petitions(CSR 7068-E) at 6 and (CSR 7125-E) at 5.
15 Id.
16 Comcast Petitions (CSR 7062-E, 7068-E, and 7125-E) at 6.
17 Comcast Petitions (CSR 7062-E, 7068-E and 7125-E) at 7.
1847 U.S.C  543(l)(l)(A).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2284
4
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions filed by Comcast Cable 
Communications, LLC and Bright House Networks, LLC for a determination of effective competition in 
the Communities listed thereon ARE GRANTED.  
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates
granted to the local franchising authorities overseeing Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Bright 
House Networks, LLC ARE REVOKED.
10. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the 
Commissions rules.19
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
1947 C.F.R.  0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2284
5
Attachment A
Cable Operators Subject to Competing Provider Effective Competition
BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS: 7060-E
2000
 DBS Census
Communities CUIDS CPR* Subscribers+ Household
Eufaula AL0074 19.82 1079.45 5447
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC: 7062-E, 7068-E, 7125-E  
2000
 DBS Census
Communities CUIDS CPR* Subscribers+ Household
CSR 7062-E
Alexander AR0686 48.91% 135 276
Bryant AR0271 51.50% 1,854 3,601
Jacksonville AR0063 22.84% 2,487 10,890
Little Rock AR0191 18.35% 14,193 77,352
North Little Rock AR0069 19.08% 4,874 25,542
Pulaski County AR0202 34.15% 7,027 20,575
AR0147
Sherwood AR0070 29.34% 2,581 8,798
AR0348
CSR 7068-E
Bolingbrook IL0209 34.35% 5,982 17,416
Braidwood IL0186 42.09% 776 1,843
Channahon IL0317 60.98% 1,390 2,279
IL0629
Coal City IL0187 46.18% 864 1,871
Crest Hill IL0272 19.63% 879 4,478
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2284
6
Diamond IL0283 45.73% 252 551
Joliet IL0039 27.75% 10,042 36,182
Frankfort IL1026 38.30% 1,309 3,418
Lemont IL0573 27.50% 1,216 4,420
Lockport IL0845 33.71% 1,888 5,599
Minooka IL0316 85.50% 1,124 1,315
Mokena IL0450 27.84% 1,309 4,703
Morris IL0050 36.41% 1,759 4,831
New Lenox IL1027 30.05% 1,759 5,853
Plainfield IL1232 69.29% 2,990 4,315
Rockdale IL1233 20.47% 156 762
Romeoville IL0197 55.07% 3,725 6,764
Shorewood IL0932 30.83% 791 2,565
Wilmington IL0185 44.45% 885 1,991
CSR 7125-E
Waukegan IL0001 43.56% 12,104 27,787
Highwood IL0430 21.99% 342 1,555
Park City IL0469 18.96% 493 2600
Libertyville IL0525 21.03% 1,535 7,298
Mundelein IL0526 24.91% 2,456 9,858
Wauconda IL0527 33.00% 1,192 3,611
Grayslake IL0528 29.02% 1,887 6,503
Deerfield IL0613 19.83% 1,273 6,420
IL1221
Gurnee IL0679 24.37% 2,590 10,629
Winthrop Harbor IL1097 27.43% 650 2,370
Zion IL1098 24.51% 1,851 7,552
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2284
7
Wadsworth IL1111 62.26% 645 1,036
Third Lake IL1196 30.37% 130 428
Green Oaks IL1197 20.38% 220 1,079
Bannockburn IL1318 20.00% 50 250
Lake Forest IL1386 19.59% 1,310 6,687
Kenilworth IL1400 19.31% 153 792
Riverwoods IL1537 19.67% 248 1,261
Beach Park IL1658 24.59% 894 3,636
Cable Operator Subject to Low Penetration Effective Competition
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC: CSR 7068-E
Communities CUIDS Franchise Area Cable Penetration                    
Households Subscribers    Level                               
 
Grundy County IL1181 3,950 633 16.03%
IL1433
IL1828
*CPR = Percentage of DBS penetration
+ = See Cable Operator Petitions