Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1036
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf
of its subsidiaries and affiliates
Petition for Determination of Effective
Competition in Various Kentucky and Tennessee
Communities
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7747-E, CSR 7748-E, CSR 7749-E,
CSR 7750-E, CSR 7751-E, CSR 7752-E &
CSR 7754-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
 Adopted:  May 1, 2008 Released: May 2, 2008
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates
(Comcast), hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to
Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(1) and 76.907 of the Commissions rules for a determination 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 system serving the Communities is subject
to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(Communications Act)1 and the Commissions implementing rules,2 and is therefore exempt from cable
rate regulation in the Communities because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast
satellite (DBS) providers, DirecTV, Inc. (DirecTV) and Dish Network (Dish). 3 Petitioner
alternatively claims to be exempt from cable rate regulation in the Communities listed on Attachment B
because the Petitioner serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area.  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
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 Attachments (A
and B).
1See 47 U.S.C.  543(a)(1).
247 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(2) and 47 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(1).
3 Dish is a registered trademark of EchoStar Communications Corporation.
447 C.F.R.  76.906.
5See 47 U.S.C.  543(l) and 47 C.F.R.  76.905.
6See  47 C.F.R.  76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1036
2
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Competing Provider Test
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
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;7 this test is otherwise referred to as the competing provider test.
4. The first prong of this test has three elements: the franchise area must be served by at
least two unaffiliated MVPDs who offer comparable programming to at least 50 percent of the
households in the franchise area.8
5. Turning to the first prong of this test, it is undisputed that these Communities are served
by both DBS providers, DIRECTV and Dish, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated with
Petitioner or with each other.  A franchise area is considered served by an MVPD if that MVPDs
service is both technically and actually available in the franchise area.  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 of the service's availability.9 The
Commission has held that a party may use evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area (the second
prong of the competing provider test discussed below) coupled with the ubiquity of DBS services to show
that consumers are reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service.10 We further find that Petitioner
has provided sufficient evidence of DBS advertising in local, regional, and national media that serve the
Communities to support their assertion that potential customers in the Communities are reasonably aware
that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.11 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 programming12 and is supported in this petition with copies of
channel lineups for both DIRECTV and Dish.13 Also undisputed is Petitioners assertion that both
DIRECTV and Dish offer service to at least 50 percent of the households in the Communities because
of their national satellite footprint.14 Accordingly, we find that the first prong of the competing provider
test is satisfied.
747 U.S.C.  543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(2).
847 C.F.R.  76.905(b)(2)(i).
9See Petition CSR 7747-E at 3-4; Petition CSR 7748-E at 3-4, Petition CSR 7749-E at 3-4; Petition CSR 7750-E at
3-4; Petition CSR 7751-E at 3-4; Petition CSR 7752-E at 3-4; Petition CSR 7754-E at 3-4.
10Mediacom Illinois LLC et al., Eleven Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Twenty-Two Local
Franchise Areas in Illinois and Michigan, 21 FCC Rcd 1175 (2006).
1147 C.F.R.  76.905(e)(2).
12See 47 C.F.R.  76.905(g).  See also Petition CSR 7747-E at 4-5; Petition CSR 7748-E at 4-5; Petition CSR 7749-
E at 4; Petition CSR 7750-E at 4; Petition CSR 7751-E at 4-5; Petition CSR 7752-E at 4-5; Petition CSR 7754-E at
4-5.
13See Petition CSR 7747-E at 4-5; Petition CSR 7748-E at 4-5 and Exhibits 2 and 3; Petition CSR 7749-E at 4-5 and
Exhibits 2 and 3; Petition CSR 7750-E at 4-5 and Exhibits 2 and 3; Petition CSR 7751-E at 4-5 and Exhibits 2 and 3;
Petition CSR 7754-E at 4-5 and Exhibits 2 and 3.
14See Petition CSR 7747-E at 3; Petition CSR 7748-E at 3; Petition CSR 7749-E at 3; Petition CSR 7750-E at 3;
Petition CSR 7751-E at 3; Petition CSR 7754-E at 3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1036
3
6. 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.  Petitioner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the Communities.15 Petitioner 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 plus four basis.16
7. Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using
Census 2000 household data,17 as reflected in Attachment A, we find that Petitioner 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 for each of the Communities.
8. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence
demonstrating that both prongs of the competing provider test are satisfied and Petitioner is subject to
effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachment A.
B. The Low Penetration Test
9. Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject
to effective competition if the Petitioner serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise
area; this test is otherwise referred to as the low penetration test.18 Petitioner alleges that it is subject to
effective competition under the low penetration effective competition test because it serves less that 30
percent of the households in the franchise area.
10. Based upon the subscriber penetration level calculated by Petitioner, as reflected in
Attachment B, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated the percentage of households subscribing to its
cable service is less than 30 percent of the households in the Communities listed on Attachment B.
Therefore, the low penetration test is also satisfied as to the Communities.
15Id. Comcast is unable to determine which MVPD is the largest in the Communities of Clarkson City, Kentucky,
Larue County, Kentucky, Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, and Taylor County, Kentucky, because the DBS
subscribership data obtained from SBCA is aggregated and does not break down the individual subscribership of
each DBS provider.  Nevertheless, Comcast argues that it is subject to effective competition because in addition to
DBS penetration exceeding 15 percent of the occupied households, the number of Comcast subscribers also exceed
15 percent and the Commission has recognized that in such cases the second prong of the competing provider test is
satisfied.
16Petition CSR 7747-E at 6-8; Petition CSR 7748-E at 6-8; Petition CSR 7749-E at 6-8; Petition CSR 7750-E at 6-8;
Petition CSR 7751-E at 6-8; Petition CSR 7754-E at 6-8.
17Petition CSR 7747-E at 8 and Exhibit 7; Petition CSR 7748-E at 8 and Exhibit 7; Petition CSR 7749-E at 8 and
Exhibit 7; CSR 7750-E at 8 and Exhibit 7; Petition CSR 7751-E at 8 and Exhibit 7; Petition CSR 7754-E at 8 and
Exhibit 7.
1847 U.S.C.  543(l)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1036
4
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its
subsidiaries and affiliates ARE GRANTED.
12. 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.
13. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commissions rules.19
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
1947 C.F.R.  0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1036
5
ATTACHMENT A
CSRs 7747-E, 7748-E, 7749-E, 7750-E, 7751-E & 7754-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ON BEHALF
OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES
CSR 7747-E
2000 Estimated
 Census DBS
Communities  CUIDS         CPR* Household Subscribers
Cave City KY0013     17.06% 844 144**
Hiseville KY1208     17.02% 94 16**
Horse Cave KY0112      17.09% 977 167**
CSR 7748-E
2000 Estimated
 Census DBS
Communities CUIDS  CPR* Household Subscribers
Campbellsville City KY0114 44.91% 4432 1902
Taylor County KY0751 45.15% 4801 2168
CSR 7749-E
2000 Estimated
 Census DBS
Communities CUIDS       CPR* Household Subscribers
Greenville City KY0116       39.70% 1859 738
Central City KY0117       35.88% 2065 741
Powderly City KY0118       25.73% 342 88
Drakesboro City KY0333       43.32% 247 107
South Carrollton City KY0334       37.14% 70 26
Muhlenberg County KY0731        44.26% 7610 3368
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1036
6
CSR 7750-E
2000 Estimated
 Census DBS
Communities CUIDS           CPR* Household Subscribers
Leitchfield City KY0110       51.75% 2485 1286
Clarkson City KY0643       69.41% 353 245
CSR 7751-E
2000 Estimated
 Census DBS
Communities CUIDS           CPR* Household Subscribers
Elizabethtown City KY0107       18.54% 9306 1725
Hodgenville City KY0115       37.65% 1235 465
Hardin County KY0640       30.37% 14348 4358
Vine Grove City KY0642       40.21% 1619 651
LaRue County KY0750       33.50% 3917 1312
CSR 7754-E
2000 Estimated
 Census DBS
Communities CUID            CPR* Household Subscribers
Livingston Town TN0060       42.51% 1543 656
*CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.
**Combined DBS/South Central Rural Telephone penetration rate.  (Comcast combines the DBS and South Central
Rural Telephone subscribers to establish that MVPDs other than the largest MVPD satisfies the 15 percent
penetration rate required under the competing provider test).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1036
7
ATTACHMENT B
CSRs 7749-E, 7751-E & 7752-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ON BEHALF
OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES
CSR 7749-E
Franchise Area Cable Penetration
Communities CUID  Households Subscribers Percentage
Muhlenberg County KY0731 7610 1691 22.22%
CSR 7751-E
Franchise Area Cable Penetration
Communities CUID  Households Subscribers Percentage
LaRue County KY0750 3917 740 18.89%
CSR 7752-E
Franchise Area Cable Penetration
Communities CUID  Households Subscribers Percentage
Radcliff City KY0396 8487 36 0.42%