Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Comcast, Effective Competition, West Virginia

Download Options

Released: March 25, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-537

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
)
)

CSR 8570-E
Petition for Determination of Effective
)
Competition in Mannington and Marion County,
)
West Virginia
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: March 21, 2013

Released: March 25, 2013

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

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 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 “Attachment A Community.” Petitioner alleges that its
cable system serving the Attachment A 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”). Petitioner additionally claims to be
exempt from cable rate regulation in the community listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as
Attachment B Community, pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act3 and Section
76.905(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules,4 because the Petitioner serves fewer than 30 percent of the
households in the franchise area. 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,5 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and
Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.6 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.7 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 Attachments A and
B.


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

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-537

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 (“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.8 This test is 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.9 It is undisputed that the Attachment A 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.10 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.11 We further find that Petitioner has
provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion that potential customers in the Attachment A
Community are reasonably aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.12 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,13 and is
supported in the petition with copies of channel lineups for both DIRECTV and DISH.14 Also undisputed
is Petitioner’s assertion that both DIRECTV and DISH offer service to at least “50 percent” of the
households in the Attachment A Community because of their national satellite footprint.15 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, exceed 15 percent of the households in a franchise
area. Petitioner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the Attachment A Community.16 Petitioner sought
to determine the competing provider penetration there by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from the
Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association that identified the number of subscribers


8 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
9 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i).
10 See Petition at 3.
11 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, ¶ 3 (2006).
12 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(e)(2).
13 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g); see also Petition at 5.
14 See Petition at Exhibit 1.
15 See id. at 3.
16 See id. at 7 and Declaration of Warren Fitting, Senior Director of Regulatory Accounting for Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC (December 19, 2011).
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-537

attributable to the DBS providers within the Attachment A Community on a zip code plus four basis.17
6.
Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using
2010 Census household data,18 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 Attachment A Community. Therefore, the second
prong of the competing provider test is satisfied for the Attachment A 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
Attachment A Community.

B.

The Low Penetration Test

7.
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 referred to as the “low penetration” test.19 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 Attachment B Community.
8.
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 Attachment B Community. Therefore, the
low penetration test is satisfied as to the Attachment B Community.

III.

ORDERING CLAUSES

9.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that the petition for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

IS GRANTED

.
10.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates
granted to any of the Communities set forth on Attachments A and B

IS REVOKED

.
11.
This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commission’s rules.20
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau


17 Petition at 6-7.
18 Id. at 7 and Exhibit 6.
19 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A).
20 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-537

ATTACHMENT A

CSR 8570-E

COMMUNITY SERVED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC


2010 Census

Estimated DBS

Community

CUID

CPR*

Households

Subscribers

City of Mannington
WV0358
22.33%
842
188

*CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-537

ATTACHMENT B

CSR 8570-E

COMMUNITY SERVED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Franchise Area

Cable

Penetration

Community

CUID

Households

Subscribers

Percentage

Marion County
WV0278
11,045
399
3.61%
5

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.