$/ FOR FCC RECORD ONLY /$

$// MO&O, Cable Act of 1992, DA 95-267//$
$/ 300.623 Regulation of Rates /$
$/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$
$/ 76.906 Presumption of no effective competition /$
$/ 76.910 Franchising authority certification /$
$/ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification /$

                               Before the
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of:                       )              DA 95-267
                                   )
HORIZON CABLE I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP     )
                                   )
Petition for Reconsideration                 )
                                   )
of Cable Services Bureau Order               )     
Denying Petition for Reconsideration         )
of Green Oak Township, Michigan's       )
Certification to Regulate Basic Cable        )
Service Rates (MI0905)                  )

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
         
Adopted:  February 17, 1995             Released:  February 21, 1995

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   On December 15, 1994, Horizon Cable I Limited Partnership ("Horizon")
filed a timely petition requesting reconsideration of a Memorandum Opinion and Order
("Order") adopted by the Cable Services Bureau ("the Bureau") pursuant to delegated
authority.  The Order denied Horizon's petition for reconsideration challenging the
certification of Green Oak Township ("Green Oak") to regulate Horizon's rates for basic
cable service and associated equipment.  In its petition, Horizon requests that the Bureau
grant its petition for reconsideration, find that Horizon is subject to effective competition,
and rescind Green Oak's certification.  Green Oak Township did not file an opposition to
Horizon's December 15, 1994 petition.
II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, allows parties to
petition for reconsideration of an order issued by the Commission or its delegated authority. 
Such a petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of public notice of that action. 
To warrant consideration, a petition for reconsideration must state the specific form(s) of
relief sought by the petitioner and allege with particularity the respects in which the contested
action should be changed.  The petition should also cite findings of fact or conclusions that
the petitioner believes to be in error and indicate how the petitioner believes they should be
changed. 

     3.   Section 623 (a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, allows
franchising authorities to become certified to regulate the basic cable service rates of cable
systems that are not subject to effective competition.  For the purposes of the initial request
for certification, local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that cable operators
within their jurisdiction are not subject to effective competition, unless they have actual
knowledge to the contrary.  Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing
unless the Commission finds that the franchising authority does not meet the statutory
certification requirements.  Cable operators may file petitions for reconsideration of the
franchising authority's certification within 30 days from the date such certification becomes
effective.  Rate regulation is automatically stayed pending review of a timely-filed petition
for reconsideration alleging the presence of effective competition.

     4.   In its original petition for reconsideration, Horizon argued that its system was
subject to effective competition in its franchise area.  Horizon based its claim of effective
competition on the allegation that its system's subscriber penetration rate was less than 30%
of the "homes" in its franchise area.  To support its claim, Horizon submitted a copy of a
computer printout which indicated that its system served 538 subscribers as of October 21,
1993.  Horizon also provided a copy of 1990 Census data which indicated that there were
4,256 "housing units" within the franchise area.  In addition, Horizon submitted a declaration
under penalty of perjury by a responsible official certifying to the accuracy of the data
included in the petition.  Using these figures, Horizon argued that the ratio of total Horizon
subscribers in relation to the total number of "housing units" in the franchise area yielded a
subscriber penetration rate of 13.0%.  Because the penetration rate fell below 30%, Horizon
argued that its system was subject to effective competition, and that Green Oak's certification
to regulate Horizon's basic cable rates and associated equipment should be rescinded.

     5.   In its Order, the Bureau denied Horizon's petition for reconsideration because
Horizon, in deriving its subscriber penetration rate, inappropriately relied upon "housing
unit" data, rather than household ("occupied housing unit") data, to determine the total
number of households in its franchise area.  Specifically, the Bureau found that Horizon's
"housing unit" count inappropriately included vacant housing units.  Because Horizon failed
to base its claim on "household" or "occupied housing unit" data, the Bureau rejected
Horizon's claim of effective competition. 

     6.   In its petition, Horizon now argues that the use of "household" (i.e., occupied
housing unit) data confirms that its system's penetration level falls below 30%.  Specifically,
Horizon submits a copy of the relevant page from the 1990 Census which indicates that there
are 3,892 occupied housing units in Horizon's franchise area.  In addition, Horizon submits
updated subscribership data which indicates that Horizon serves a total of 715 subscribers as
of January 21, 1995.  This yields a penetration level of 18.37%.  As such, Horizon argues
that the public interest warrants acceptance of this new data because it demonstrates that
Horizon is subject to effective competition based on a low penetration level.

III. DISCUSSION

     7.   Generally, reconsideration is appropriate where the petitioner shows either a
material error or omission in the original order or raises additional facts not known or not
existing until after the petitioners last opportunity to present such matters.  A petition for
reconsideration which relies on facts or information not previously presented to the
Commission or its delegated authority may be considered if the Commission or delegated
authority determines that consideration of such facts is required in the public interest.

     8.   In its original petition, Horizon based its effective competition claim on
housing unit data which inappropriately included vacant housing units.  In this petition,
however, Horizon now submits sufficient household (i.e., occupied housing units) data in
support of its effective competition claim.

     9.   Relying on this household data, we find that Horizon currently serves 715
subscribers in an area with 3,892 households (i.e., occupied housing units).  This yields a
penetration level of 18.37%.  In light of this, we find that Horizon has submitted sufficient
evidence demonstrating that it serves fewer than 30% of the households in its franchise area. 
Accordingly, its cable system is subject to effective competition and its petition is granted.

IV.       ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.       Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by
Horizon Cable I Limited Partnership challenging the certification of Green Oak Township,
Michigan to regulate basic cable rates IS GRANTED.

     11.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of Green Oak Township,
Michigan to regulate the basic cable service rates of Horizon Cable I Limited Partnership IS
RESCINDED.

     12.       This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.

                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                    
                    Meredith J. Jones
                    Chief, Cable Services Bureau