Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS LONG ISLAND CORPORATION, CABLEVISION SYSTEMS HUNTINGTON CORPORATION, CABLEVISION SYSTEMS WESTCHESTER CORPORATION, PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN FIVE FRANCHISE AREAS IN NEW YORK

Download Options

Released: December 29, 2009

Federal Communications Commission

DA 09-2636

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Cablevision Systems Long Island Corporation
)
Cablevision Systems Huntington Corporation
)
CSR 8236-E
Cablevision Systems Westchester Corporation
)
CSR 8237-E
)
Petition for a Determination of Effective
)
Competition in Five Franchise Areas in New York )
State
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: December 28, 2009

Released: December 29, 2009

By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.
Cablevision Systems Long Island Corporation, Cablevision Systems Huntington
Corporation, and Cablevision Systems Westchester Corporation, hereinafter referred to collectively as
“Petitioner,” have filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(4) and
76.907 of the Commission’s rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in
those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as the “Communities.” Petitioner
alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to
Section 623(1)(1)(D) 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 because of the competing service provided by Verizon New York Inc., hereinafter referred
to as “Competitor.”3 The petition is 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 Commission’s 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 Petition based on our
finding that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachment A.


1See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(D).
247 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).
3 Petitioner states that, to the best of its knowledge, its cable rates in two of the Communities (the Village of
Asharoken and the Town of Pound Ridge) have never been regulated, either by the local governments or the New
York Public Service Commission. Petitioner nevertheless seeks to be free of rate regulation because “Verizon's
provision of cable service in both of these communities removes any doubt regarding the absence of authority to
regulate Cablevision's rates” there. See Petition at 4 n.5. We find no flaw in Cablevision's reasoning and filing
petitions concerning Communities where there is no present regulation.
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 09-2636

II.

DISCUSSION

3.
Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject
to effective competition if a local exchange carrier (“LEC”), or its affiliate, offers video programming
services directly to subscribers by any means (other than direct-to-home satellite services) in the franchise
area of an unaffiliated cable operator which is providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if
the video programming services offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services
provided by the competing unaffiliated cable operator.7 This test is otherwise referred to as the “LEC”
test.
4.
The Commission has stated that the incumbent cable operator must show that the LEC
intends to build-out its cable system within a reasonable period of time if it has not completed its build-
out; that no regulatory, technical, or other impediments to household service exist; that the LEC is
marketing its services so that potential customers are aware that the LEC’s services may be purchased;
that the LEC has actually begun to provide services; the extent of such services; the ease with which
service may be expanded; and the expected date for completion of construction in the franchise area.8 It
is undisputed that these Communities are served by both Petitioner and Competitor, a local exchange
carrier, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated. 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 programming9 and is supported in this petition with copies of
channel lineups for Competitor.10 Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated that the Competitor has
commenced providing video programming service within the Communities, has marketed its services in a
manner that makes potential subscribers reasonably aware of its services, and otherwise satisfied the LEC
effective competition test consistent with the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Cable Reform
Order
.11
5.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence
demonstrating that its cable systems serving the Communities have met the LEC test and are subject to
effective competition.


7See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(D).
8See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd 5296,
5305-06, ¶¶ 13-15 (1999) (“Cable Reform Order”).
9See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). See also Petition at 13.
10See Petition at Exh. 8.
11See Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-15. See also Petition at 5-13 & Exhs. 5-7.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 09-2636

III.

ORDERING CLAUSES

6.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that the petition for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Cablevision Systems Long Island Corporation,
Cablevision Systems Huntington Corporation, and Cablevision Systems Westchester Corporation

IS
GRANTED

.
7.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates
granted to, or exercised on behalf of, any of the Communities set forth on Attachment A

IS REVOKED

.
8.
This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commission’s rules.12
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau


1247 C.F.R. § 0.283.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 09-2636

ATTACHMENT A

CSR 8236-E, CSR 8237-E

COMMUNITIES SERVED BY CABLEVISION SYSTEMS LONG ISLAND CORPORATION,

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS HUNTINGTON CORPORATION, AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS

WESTCHESTER CORPORATION

Communities

CUID(s)

CSR 8236-E

Cablevision Systems Long Island Corporation
Long Beach (City)
NY0740
Sea Cliff (Village)
NY0791
Westbury (Village)
NY0703
Cablevision Systems Huntington Corporation
Asharoken (Village)
NY1010

CSR 8237-E

Cablevision Systems Westchester Corporation
Pound Ridge (Town)
NY1489

4

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.