Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Charter Communications, Effective Competition, New Hampshire

Download Options

Released: June 10, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1343

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Charter Communications
)
MB Docket No. 12-169, CSR 8660-E
)
Petition for Determination of Effective
)
Competition in Hollis, NH
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: June 7, 2013

Released: June 10, 2013

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

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.
Charter Communications, hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner," has filed with the
Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for
a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the community listed on Attachment
A and hereinafter referred to as the "Community." Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the
Community is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"),1 and the Commission's implementing rules,2 and is
therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Community because of the competing service provided
by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DIRECTV, Inc. ("DIRECTV"), and DISH Network
("DISH"). 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,3 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act 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 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petition based on our
finding that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Community listed on Attachment A.

II.

DISCUSSION

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 ("MVPDs"), 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 This test is referred to as the "competing provider" test.


1 See 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(B).
2 47 C.F.R. 76.905(b)(2).
3 47 C.F.R. 76.906.
4 See 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1); 47 C.F.R. 76.905(b).
5 See 47 C.F.R. 76.906-.907(b).
6 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 76.905(b)(2).

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1343

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.7 It is undisputed that the Community is "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 MVPD's 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.8 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.9 We further find that Petitioner has provided
sufficient evidence to support its assertion that potential customers in the Community are reasonably
aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.10 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 programming,11 and is supported in this petition
with copies of channel lineups for both DIRECTV and DISH.12 Also undisputed is Petitioner's assertion
that both DIRECTV and DISH offer service to at least "50 percent" of the households in the Community
because of their national satellite footprint.13 Accordingly, we find that the first prong of the competing
provider test is satisfied.
5.
The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the number of households
subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in a franchise
area. Petitioner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the Community.14 Petitioner sought to determine
the competing provider penetration in the Community by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from the
Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association that identified the number of subscribers
attributable to the DBS providers within the Community on a zip code plus four basis.15
6.
Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using
Census 2010 household data,16 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 Community. Therefore, the second prong of the
competing provider test is satisfied for the Community. 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 Community listed on Attachment A.


7 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(B)(i); 47 C.F.R. 76.905(b)(2)(i).
8 See Petition at 3-4.
9 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, 3 (2006).
10 47 C.F.R. 76.905(e)(2).
11 See 47 C.F.R. 76.905(g); see also Petition at 4.
12 See Petition at Exhibit 1.
13 See Petition at 2-4.
14 See Petition at 6 and attached Declaration of Denise Williams, Director of Regulatory Compliance for Charter
Communications (June 12, 2012).
15 Petition at 5-6. A zip code plus four analysis allocates DBS subscribers to a franchise area using zip code plus
four information that generally reflects franchise area boundaries in a more accurate fashion than standard five digit
zip code information.
16 Petition at 5-6.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1343

III.

ORDERING CLAUSES

7.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that the petition for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Charter Communications

IS GRANTED

.
8.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates
granted to the Community set forth on Attachment A

IS REVOKED

.
9.
This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commission's rules.17
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau


17 47 C.F.R. 0.283.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1343

ATTACHMENT A

MB Docket No. 12-169, CSR 8660-E

COMMUNITY SERVED BY CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS

2010 Census

Estimated DBS

Community

CUID

CPR*

Households

Subscribers

Hollis
NH0196
24.58%
2,811
691

*CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.
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.