Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

COXCOM, INC. d/b/a COX COMMUNICATIONS NEW ENGLAND, PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE COMPETITION IN NINETEEN FRANCHISE AREAS IN CONNECTICUT

Download Options

Released: February 19, 2010

Federal Communications Commission

DA 10-284

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

CoxCom, Inc. d/b/a Cox Communications
)
CSR 7864-E
New England
)
)

Petition for Determination of Effective
)
Competition in Nineteen Franchise Areas in
Connecticut

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: February 18, 2010

Released: February 19, 2010

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

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.
CoxCom, Inc. d/b/a Cox Communications New England, hereinafter referred to as
“Petitioner,” has 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 “Communities.” Petitioner
alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is 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 is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the
Communities because of the competing service provided by The Southern New England Telephone
Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut (“AT&T”), hereinafter referred to as “Competitor.” 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 Communities listed on Attachment A.


1See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).
247 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).
347 C.F.R. § 76.906.
4See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
5See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 10-284

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.6 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.7 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 programming8 and is supported in this petition with copies of
channel lineups for Competitor.9 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
.10
5.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence
demonstrating that its cable system serving the Communities has met the LEC test and is subject to
effective competition.


6See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(D).
7See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd 5296,
5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16 (1999) (“Cable Reform Order”).
8See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). See also Petition at 17-18.
9See Petition at 18, Exhibit 13.
10See Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16. See also Petition at 8-17.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 10-284

III.

ORDERING CLAUSES

6.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that the petition for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by CoxCom, Inc. d/b/a Cox Communications New England

IS GRANTED

.
7.

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

.
8.
This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commission’s rules.11
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau


1147 C.F.R. § 0.283.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 10-284

ATTACHMENT A

CSR 7864-E

COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COXCOM, INC. d/b/a COX COMMUNICATIONS

NEW ENGLAND


Communities

CUIDS

Meriden

CT0004

Cheshire

CT0006

Southington

CT0008

Manchester

CT0031

Glastonbury

CT0032

Newington

CT0033

Rocky Hill

CT0034

Wethersfield

CT0035

South Windsor

CT0128

Enfield

CT0129

Hartland

CT0130

Granby

CT0131

East Granby

CT0132

Suffield

CT0133

Windsor Locks

CT0134

East Windsor

CT0135

Somers

CT0136

Stafford

CT0137

Union

CT0138

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.