Federal Communications Commission DA 07-947 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of:
Bright House Networks, LLC
Petition for Determination of Effective 
Competition in Various Florida Communities
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 6937-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 1, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Bright House Networks, LLC (Bright House) has filed with the Commission a petition 
pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules seeking a finding 
of effective competition in Crystal River (the City) and unincorporated Hernando County, Florida (the 
County) (collectively, the Communities).1 Bright House alleges that its cable system serving the 
communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act")2 and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation 
because of competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc. 
(DirecTV) and DISH Network (DISH).  Hernando County filed an opposition, to which Bright House 
replied.  
II. DISCUSSION
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 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  Based on the 
record in this proceeding, Bright House has met this burden.
3. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject 
to effective competition if the 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 
  
1See 47 C.F.R.  76.7(a)(1) and 76.905(b)(1) & (2).  The franchise area consists of Crystal River (FL0026) and 
unincorporated Hernando County (FL0641, FL0597).  
2See 47 U.S.C.  543(a)(1).
347 C.F.R.  76.906.
447 C.F.R.  76.905.
5See  47 C.F.R.  76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-947
2
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 the competing provider test, DBS service 
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  Bright House has not provided evidence of the advertising of DBS service in the news media 
serving the Communities, however, it argues that potential subscribers are aware of DBS because of prior 
Commission findings regarding the ubiquitous availability of DBS service; DBS providers extensive 
national, regional, and local advertising; and marketing efforts through television, radio, internet, print 
media, and direct marketing.8 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 DISH the third largest, MVPD provider.9 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 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 at least 12 channels of video programming, 
including at least one non-broadcast channel.10 We find further that Bright House has demonstrated that 
the 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.  Bright House asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the Communities because Bright Houses 
subscribership exceeds the aggregate DBS subscribership for those franchise areas.11  Bright House 
derived the DBS subscribership based on an allocation methodology previously approved by the 
Commission.12  Bright House initially determined the number of households in the franchise area based 
on data from the 2000 Census.13  Bright House then derived an allocation ratio by dividing the 2000 
Census household figure by the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Associations (SBCA) 
aggregate household figure for the five digit zip code area covering all or part of the franchise area.14  The
DBS subscriber count was then multiplied by the allocation ratio to determine the number of DBS 
subscribers allocable to the franchise areas, which was then divided by the 2000 Census household total 
  
647 U.S.C.  543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(2).
7See MediaOne of Georgia, 12 FCC Rcd 19406 (1997).  
8See Bright House Petition at 4-5.
9Twelfth Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, FCC 
06-11 at  6, 13. 72-73 (rel. March 3, 2006). 
10See 47 C.F.R.  76.905(g).  See also Petition at 6-7.
11Bright House Petition at 8 and Exhibits A and C.
12Id. at 7-9 and Exhibit E; see, e.g., In re Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in San Luis Obispo 
County, California, 17 FCC Rcd 4617 (2002); Fibervision, Inc. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition 
in Laurel, MT and Park City, MT, 17 FCC Rcd 16313 (2002).
13Bright House Petition at 7-9 and Exhibit C.
14Id. Exhibit E.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-947
3
to derive the total DBS subscribership.15    
5. In opposition, Hernando raises several preliminary procedural objections.  Hernando 
argues that the declaration supporting the Petition violates Section 1.16 of the Commissions rules 
because the declarant does not have personal knowledge that would make him competent to testify and 
the declaration is unsworn evidence.16 The County objects to consideration of the Petitions exhibits 
because each component is not authenticated and is therefore inadmissible as hearsay.17 The County 
alleges that the declaration is ambiguous because it cannot be determined if the facts include those in the 
exhibits.18  In addition, the County argues that the information contained in the Petition is hearsay because 
it is conclusory and lacks reliability.19 The County also objects to the SBCA data submitted by Bright 
House as inadmissible opinion and hearsay because there is no expert testimony to support the 
methodology used by Bright House.20  The County requests that we disregard the Petition and exhibits 
because the declaration does not authenticate them.21 The County also requests that the Commission 
reject or dismiss the Petition because the footnote font is smaller than 12-point and the spacing between 
footnote lines may be smaller than the minimum allowed by Section 1.49(a) of the Commissions rules.22
The County claims that Bright House used the small footnote font and spacing for the purpose of evading 
the Commissions requirement that documents exceeding 10 pages contain a table of contents and a 
summary.23 Alternatively, the County asks that we view the declaration as an evidence of Bright Houses 
lack of credibility and refuse to accept as true any facts contained in the Petition that are not 
independently corroborated as evidence.24  Substantively, the County argues that Bright House has failed 
to carry its burden because less than 15 percent of the population subscribes to DBS service.25 To support 
this claim, the County argues that Bright House omitted two of the most densely populated areas, zip 
codes 34608 and 34609, which contain 24,000 households, from the household total.26  The County 
therefore claims that the number of households in the County cannot be established and the Commission 
cannot determine whether the 15 percent DBS threshold has been reached.27  In addition, the County
claims that only 20  25 percent of the households in zip codes 33597 and 33523 are located in Hernando 
County. The County also submitted an affidavit from a planner who analyzes demographic statistics for 
the County on a monthly basis, based on estimates of population, dwelling units, and households using 
information from the County Planning Department map, County Building Division, and U.S. Census 
Bureau.  The planner concluded that the number of households for the County exceeds 65,000.28
  
15Id.
16Opposition at 1-2; 47 C.F.R.  1.16.
17Opposition at 2.
18Id.
19Id.
20Id. at 3. 
21Id.
22Id. at 4; 47 C.F.R.  1.49(a).
23Opposition at 4; 47 C.F.R.  1.49(b) and (c).
24Id. at 4.
25Id. at 5-8. 
26Id.
27Id.
28Opposition, Exhibit A.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-947
4
6. In reply, Bright House argues that the Citys preliminary objections are inconsequential 
and inappropriate in the context of Commission review of effective competition petitions.  Bright House 
notes that the Commission has repeatedly granted such petitions with the same supporting evidence and 
exhibits as submitted in this instance.29 Finally, Bright House argues that it has satisfied the competing 
provider test because more than 15 percent of residents subscribe to DBS service.  Bright House notes 
that it hired Media Business Corp. to identify zip codes for unincorporated Hernando County and it did 
not identify the two zip codes (34608 and 34609) that were excluded.30 Bright House will concede that 
given the Countys knowledge of its own communities, it has no reason to doubt the Countys claim that 
these two zip codes should be included.  Nevertheless, even when these two zip codes are added, Bright 
House contends, the DBS penetration exceeds 28 percent and thus the effective competition test is still 
met.31 Bright House rejects the Countys argument that two other zip codes (33597 and 33523) should 
have been excluded because they only partially overlap the County.32  Bright House notes that the 
Commissions approved methodology for calculating DBS subscribership takes into consideration the fact 
that zip codes may cover a franchise area in whole or in part.   
7. We reject the Citys preliminary procedural objections.  The declaration submitted in 
support of the Petition is consistent with Section 1.16 of our rules.33 In addition, the certification 
requirement under Section 76.6(a)(4) of our rules requires that the signatory certify that the Petition is 
warranted by existing law or a good faith extension.34 In this instance, there is both a declaration from the 
local Bright House official and a certification by the law firm representing Bright House.  We deem this 
sufficient.  We also reject the Citys argument that the DBS penetration numbers submitted by Bright 
House are inadmissible hearsay.  The Commission has repeatedly accepted SBCAs subscriber reports on 
behalf of the DBS providers in satisfaction of Section 76.907(c) of the Commissions rules.35 Pursuant to 
this provision, cable operators may request subscriber information from competitors for effective 
competition purposes; however, this information may be limited to numerical totals.36 Section 76.907(c) 
clearly contemplates that cable operators may rely on such information in petitioning the Commission for 
a determination of effective competition.  We accept the SBCA Report submitted by Bright House as 
reliable evidence relating to the DBS penetration rate in the franchise areas.37 We also reject the Citys 
request to dismiss the Petition because the footnote font and spacing deviates slightly from Commission 
requirements.  Although we expect filings to the Commission to be consistent with all of our rules, we 
believe dismissal in this instance would be extreme.  Moreover, dismissal of Bright Houses Petition for 
technical footnote spacing and font size errors would be needlessly burdensome to all parties involved 
  
29Reply at 1-2.
30Id. at 2.
31Id. at 2-3.
32Id. at 3.
3347 C.F.R.  1.16.
3447 C.F.R.  76.6(a)(4).
35See, e.g., In the Matter of Cablevision of Raritan Valley, Inc. et al., 19 FCC Rcd 6966, 6968 (2004); In the Matter 
of Adelphia Cable Communications, 20 FCC Rcd 4979, 4982 (2005); In the Matter of MCC Iowa LLC, 2005 WL 
2513517 (2005); In the Matter of CSC Holdings, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 6891, 6892 (2004).  Although SBCA has 
succeeded SkyTrends in providing the DBS penetration figures, the Reports are substantially the same and continue 
to provide accurate data for determining effective competition.
3647 C.F.R.  907(c).
37We note that both of the DBS providers that provide the subscribership information used to generate the SBCA 
Reports are Commission licensees.  As such, the Commission has the ability to sanction these providers should the 
information they provide to the cable operators pursuant to Section 76.907(c) prove to be misleading or inaccurate.  
47 C.F.R.  76.907(c).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-947
5
because, ultimately, it would simply result in the refiling of a substantively identical petition by Bright 
House and a repetition of the pleading cycle that has already taken place in this proceeding. Future Bright 
House filings must comply with all of the Commissions requirements.  
8. Finally, we reject the Citys challenge to the use of the 2000 Census data figures as 
outdated.  We have consistently held that the 2000 Census data is sufficiently reliable for effective 
competition determinations in numerous proceedings.38 Nevertheless, the Commission has indicated that 
it will accept more recent household data that is demonstrated to be reliable.39  The County offers a 
more recent figure that comprises estimates of population, dwelling, and households in unincorporated 
Hernando County. We are unable to accept the Countys revised figure, however, because it apparently 
includes the estimated number of total housing units in the unincorporated county area as well as building 
permits, rather than the number of households, i.e., occupied housing units.40 The competing provider test 
for effective competition set forth in Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act expressly instructs 
the Commission to evaluate effective competition on the basis of households.41 Accordingly, the 
Countys figure is an inappropriate measure for effective competition purposes, and we rely instead on the 
2000 Census data. Furthermore, even when Bright House included the additional 24,000 households in
its calculation, there was no substantial change in the DBS subscribership rate; it still exceeds the 15 
percent threshold by a substantial amount.
9. Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels, as reflected in Attachment 
A, calculated using Census 2000 household data,42 we find that Bright House 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.  Therefore, the second prong of the 
competing provider test is satisfied as to the Communities.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that 
Bright House has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that its cable system serving the 
Communities are subject to effective competition.    
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Bright House Networks, LLC IS GRANTED. 
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of Crystal River and unincorporated 
Hernando County to regulate basic cable service rates ARE REVOKED. 
12. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commissions rules.43
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
  
38In the Matter of Cablevision of Raritan Valley, Inc. et al., 19 FCC Rcd 6966, 6968 (2004); In the Matter of 
Adelphia Cable Communications, 20 FCC Rcd 4979, 4982 (2005); In the Matter of MCC Iowa LLC, 2005 WL 
2513517 (2005).
39In the Matter of Adelphia Cable Communications, 20 FCC Rcd 4979, 4982 (2005); In the Matter of MCC Iowa 
LLC, 2005 WL 2513517 (2005).
40See In the Matter of Marcus Cable Associates, LLC d/b/a Charter Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 16652, n. 
19 (2002) (The term households means occupied housing units).
4147 C.F.R.  543(l)(1)(B).
42Bright House Petition at 7-9 and Exhibits B, C, D, and E; Bright House Reply at 2-3 and Exhibit A. 
4347 C.F.R.  0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-947
6
Steven A. Broeckaert
Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-947
7
CSR  6937-E
COMMUNITY SERVED BY BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
2000 Estimated
 Census DBS
Communities CUIDS  CPR* Households+ Subscribers+
Crystal River FL0026  27.63% 1498 414
Uninc. Hernando FL0641 28.63% 52200 14948
County FL0597
 
*CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.
+See Bright House Petition at 7-9 and Exhibits B, C, D and E; Bright House Reply at 2-3 and Exhibit A.