Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Time Warner Petition For Effective Competition, North Carolina

Download Options

Released: November 27, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse
)
Partnership
)
CSR 8051-E
)
Petition for Determination of Effective
)
Competition in Communities in North Carolina
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: November 25, 2013

Released: November 27, 2013

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

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.
Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (“Time Warner” or “the
Company”) 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 the Company is subject to effective competition in the
communities listed on Attachment A (“the Attachment A Communities”). Time Warner alleges that its
cable system serving the Attachment A Communities 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 regulation of the rates for its basic
service in those Communities. The alleged competition is from the two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”)
providers, DIRECTV, Inc., and DISH Network. Time Warner also claims to be exempt from cable rate
regulation in the Communities listed on Attachment B (“the Attachment B Communities”) 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 Company serves fewer than 30 percent of the households there.
2.
Virtually identical oppositions to the Petition were filed by 17 local governments in the
Attachment A Communities (“the Franchise Authorities”).5 No opposition was filed concerning any
Attachment B Community. Time Warner filed a single “Reply” to all the oppositions. Recently, the
Company filed a letter (“May 19 Letter”) that included new calculations of the DBS providers’ and the
Company’s market shares in the Attachment A and B Communities, respectively, using 2010 Census
data.6 The Company sent a copy of the May 19 Letter to each of the Franchise Authorities.7 None


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 The oppositions were filed by Alamance County; the Cities of Asheboro, Burlington, Eden, Graham and
Greensboro; Guilford County; the Town of Haw River, the City of High Point; the Towns of Liberty, Mayodan, and
Pleasant Garden; the Town of Ramseur; Randolph County; the Cities of Randleman and Reidsville; Rockingham
County; and the Town of Stokesdale. Each opposition is titled with the name of the filing government entity,
followed by “Opposition to Petition for Special Relief for Determination of Effective Competition.”
6 Letter from Craig A. Gilley, Esq., Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, counsel for Time Warner, to Steven A.
Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau (dated May 19, 2011).
7 E-Mail from Mr. Gilley to John W. Berresford, Esq., Media Bureau, 11:55 A.M., July 13, 2011.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

responded to it.
3.
In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be
subject to effective competition,8 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and
Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.9 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.10 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petition based on our
finding that Time Warner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachments A
and B.

II.

DISCUSSION

A.

The Competing Provider Test

4.
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.11 This test is referred to as the “competing provider” test.
1.

The First Part of the Competing Provider Test

5.
The first part 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.12 It is undisputed that the Attachment A Communities are “served by”
both DBS providers and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated with Time Warner 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.13 The Commission has held that a party may use
evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area (the second part 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.14 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,15 and is supported in the petition with citations to the channel lineups
for both DBS providers.16
6.
Time Warner asserts that both DBS providers offer service to at least “50 percent” of the


8 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
9 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
10 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906-.907(b).
11 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
12 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i).
13 See Petition at 4.
14 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, ¶ 3 (2006).
15 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g); see also Petition at 6.
16 See Petition at 5 n.12; id. at 6.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

households in the Attachment A Communities because of their national satellite footprint.17 The
Franchise Authorities object that Time Warner’s evidence for this assertion is based on five-digit Zip
Codes, and that the Company should have used more precise nine-digit Zip Codes.18 This objection
misreads Time Warner’s petition. The Company relies not on Zip Codes or numbers, but on our
longstanding presumption that the DBS providers’ nationwide satellite footprint makes their service
available to at least 50 percent of the households in every community.19 The Franchise Authorities have
submitted nothing showing that the presumption is not correct. Accordingly, we find that DBS service is
offered to at least 50 percent of the households in the Attachment A Communities and that the first part of
the competing provider test is satisfied as to each of those Communities.
2.

The Second Part of the Competing Provider Test

7.
The second part 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. Time Warner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in all but four of the Attachment A Communities.20
In those four, it is unclear whether Time Warner or one of the DBS providers is the largest MVPD. In
each of them, however, the DBS providers’ combined household share is over 15 percent and is larger
than Time Warner’s, and Time Warner’s household share is also over 15 percent.21 This data makes clear
that, whichever of the three MVPDs is the largest, the combined share of the other two is also over 15
percent.22
8.
The second part of the competing provider test thus required Time Warner to calculate a
ratio for each Attachment A Community the numerator of which was the number of DBS subscribers in
the Community and the denominator of which is the number of households there. Time Warner began
composing its numerator – the number of DBS subscribers in each Attachment A Community – by
obtaining a list from Media Business Corporation of the five-digit Zip Codes that lay totally or partly
within each Attachment A Community.23 Then, Time Warner obtained from the Satellite Broadcasting
and Communications Association (“SBCA”) a statement of how many DBS subscribers were in each of
those Zip Codes.24 Next, for each Attachment A Community that contained only part of a Zip Code (a


17 Id. at 7.
18 See, e.g., City of Asheboro Opposition at 4.
19 Petition at 4, 7; Implementation of Section of the Cable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of
1992: Rate Regulation
, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5660-62, ¶ 32 (1993) (“Once a ‘competitive’ DBS satellite system is
launched, it will be deemed technically available to households in a franchise area . . . if its footprint covers those
households, absent extraordinary circumstances”) (footnote omitted), on reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4322, ¶
10 (“There is no dispute that multichannel video programming is available throughout the United States from
satellite stations (except where there are reception obstacles such as zoning restrictions)”) (1994), reversed in part
on other grounds, Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC
, 56 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516
U.S. 1112 (1996); United Cable Television Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 20382, 20383, ¶ 3 (2000); Mountain Cable Co., 14
FCC Rcd 13994, 14001, ¶ 15 (1999).
20 The four exceptions are the Towns of Biscoe (NC0410), Candor (NC0724), Franklinville (NC0841) and Liberty
(NC0540). Petition at 7; id. at Exh. A (Declaration of Jack W. Stanley, Regional Vice President of Government and
Public Affairs for the Carolina Region of Time Warner) at ¶ 3.
21 Petition at 7-8.
22 See Time Warner Cable Inc., 26 FCC Rcd 547, 548-49, ¶ 7 (2011); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 23 FCC Rcd
10939, 10941, ¶ 9 (2008); Time Warner-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd 23587, 23589, ¶ 6 (2002).
23 Petition at Exh. B.
24 Id. at Exh. D.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

“partial Zip Code”), the Company used an allocation formula that we have accepted in past decisions25 to
estimate the percent of the DBS subscribers that were in those partial Zip Codes.26 Finally, Time Warner
multiplied the number of DBS subscribers in the Zip Codes by the allocation percent for that Attachment
A Community, and added the numbers of DBS subscribers in any Zip Codes that lay totally within the
Attachment A Community. This produced an estimate of the number of DBS subscribers in each
Attachment A Community.27 These estimates, placed over the number of households in the Communities,
show DBS subscribership in excess of 15 percent. If accepted and not overcome by superior evidence or
argument, they show that the second part of the competing provider effective competition test is satisfied
in each Attachment A Community.
9.
All the Franchise Authorities make several points. First, they make a vague objection that
there are “significant problems” and “errors in Time Warner’s data.”28 They do not specify any such
problem or error, however. Such generalities do not overcome the Company’s specific factual evidence.29
The Franchise Authorities’ objection is meritless.
10.
Second, the Franchise Authorities predict harmful consequences for “residents on fixed
and lower incomes” if Time Warner’s rates for basic service are deregulated.30 As we have repeatedly
held, however, any such consequences are immaterial under Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications
Act. The only material issue is whether the cable operator satisfies the criteria stated in the statute.31
11.
Third, the Franchise Authorities object that Time Warner’s DBS subscriber numbers
include courtesy, complimentary, and free accounts.32 This objection also lacks merit, because we have
consistently allowed such accounts to be counted in DBS subscriber numbers. The existence of free DBS
service for some households shows that the cable operator faces intense competition for such


25 Time Warner Cable Inc., 26 FCC Rcd 7666, 7668-69, ¶¶ 8-10 (2011); Time Warner Cable Inc., 26 FCC Rcd
1728, 1733, ¶ 15 (2011); Charter Commc’ns, 26 FCC Rcd 1158, 1161, ¶ 9 (2011).
26 Petition at 8; id. at Exhs. B, E (col. F).
27 May 19 Letter, second attached page; see also Petition at Exh. E.
28 See, e.g., City of Burlington Opposition at 2. In the same vein, the City of Greensboro alleges without any
specificity or evidence that SBCA’s statement “overstates DBS subscribers” and “includes many [DBS] subscribers
within the City that are actually in another jurisdiction.” City of Greensboro Opposition at 2.
29 Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 26 FCC Rcd 3993, 3995-96, ¶ 8 (2011) (“the City must do more than produce
vague doubts”); Time Warner Cable Inc., 25 FCC Rcd 5457, 5460-61, ¶ 11 (2010) (“general objections about the
[factual evidence] submitted by Petitioner reveal no flaw in the petition”); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 23 FCC
Rcd 8564, 8566, ¶ 9 (2008) (a cable operator’s credible numerical evidence “cannot be overturned by franchising
authorities expressing only generalized concerns and doubts. It is reasonable to require franchising authorities to
present factual evidence and showings about their own communities.”) (footnote omitted).
30 See, e.g., City of Eden Opposition at 4.
31 Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 26 FCC Rcd 3850, 3856, ¶ 24 (2011) (footnote omitted):
“if a cable operator shows that the number of households subscribing to programming services
offered by MVPDs other than the largest one exceeds 15 percent of the households in its franchise
area, then that cable operator is entitled to be free of regulation of its rates for basic cable service.
The statute leaves no room for the subjects that the City attempts to raise herein[, which include
alleged “disproportionate effects on residents of fixed and lower incomes”]”;
Mediacom Southeast LLC, 23 FCC Rcd 8379, 8381, ¶ 7 (2008) (rejecting claims that deregulation will have a
“possible adverse impact on . . . senior citizens and other individuals living on fixed incomes”); MCC Missouri LLC,
20 FCC Rcd 17909, 17911, ¶ 6 (2005) (same).
32 See, e.g., City of Graham Opposition at 3.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

households.33
12.
Fourth, the Franchise Authorities object that we should require Time Warner to use
relatively precise “Zip+4” nine-digit Zip Codes, which avoid the need for an allocation percentage.34 We
have several times declined to require nine-digit-based data35 and we do so again. No good purpose
would be served by prohibiting a cable operator from using one allocation formula and requiring another
method in the absence of any indication that would alter the outcome in the proceeding at hand, or that the
method used by the cable operator actually produced an erroneous result. Any of the Franchise
Authorities could have purchased its own nine-digit report to refute Time Warner's five-digit-based
calculations. Accordingly, consistent with our longstanding practice, we accept the five-digit Zip Code
basis of Time Warner’s showing of the number of DBS subscribers in the Attachment A Communities.
13.
The City of Greensboro makes the only objection to Time Warner’s denominator, the
number of households in an Attachment A Community. The Company’s petition used the 2000 Census
number of households in Greensboro, 92,087.36 The City submits a higher number, 100,570, which is “as
of 2008, as determined by the City’s Engineering & Inspections and Planning Departments.”37 We reject
the City’s submitted number for two reasons. First, the City has not shown how this number was
calculated or, most important, whether it is as reliable as an actual count made by the U.S. Census.38
Second, Time Warner’s May 19 Letter contains a household count for Greensboro from the 2010 Census
(111,731). We will use the latter number, following our practice of using the count of households from
the most recent decennial Census, absent a more recent number that is shown to be at least equally
reliable.39
14.
Finally, all the Franchise Authorities characterize two of our past effective competition
decisions as stating that if there are “discrepancies in factual data” between the evidence submitted by the
cable operator and the franchise authorities, the Commission “must construe such discrepancies against
the cable operator.”40 Assuming arguendo the accuracy of these characterizations, they are inapposite
here because, with the exception of the preceding paragraph, the Franchise Authorities have not disputed
the Company’s factual evidence with credible factual evidence of their own.41 They have rested instead


33 Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 26 FCC Rcd 4901, 4904, ¶ 8 (2011); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 25 FCC
Rcd 4967, 4972, ¶ 17 (2010); Bright House Networks, LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 4390, 4394, ¶ 11 (2007).
34 See, e.g., Guilford County Opposition at 3. The City of Greensboro makes a sweeping objection to using Zip
Codes at all in measuring DBS subscribership. City of Greensboro Opposition at 3-4. We reject this objection
because Zip Code-based numbers have produced reliable estimates in hundreds of proceedings and the City of
Greensboro has not shown that Time Warner’s estimates for Greensboro are, in actual fact, inaccurate in any way.
35 Time Warner Cable Inc., 26 FCC Rcd 7666, 7669, ¶ 10 (2011); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 26 FCC Rcd
3850, 3854, ¶ 18 (2011); Subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corp., 23 FCC Rcd 14141, 14151, ¶ 34 (2008).
36 Petition at Exh. E, col. A.
37 City of Greensboro Opposition at 3.
38 See, e.g., Charter Commc’ns Entertainment I LLC, 26 FCC Rcd 5975, 5980 ¶ 17 (2011); Comcast Cable
Commc’ns, LLC
, 26 FCC Rcd 3733, 3735, ¶ 8 (2011); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 26 FCC Rcd 3726, 3729, ¶
9 (2011); see also Reply at 6.
39 See authorities cited in note 38 supra.
40 See, e.g., City of Guilford Opposition at 2, citing Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 12848,
12849-50, ¶¶ 5-6 (2003) (considering rival lists of zip codes submitted by the petitioning cable operator and the
franchise authority); Tri-Lakes Cable, 12 FCC Rcd 13170, 13179-80, ¶¶ 19-20 (1997) (choosing between numbers
submitted by the petitioning cable operator and a rival MVPD).
41 See supra note 29.
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

on generalities that do not undermine Time Warner’s factual showings. Accordingly, their claims have
no merit.
15.
Based upon the aggregate DBS subscribership estimates that were calculated using
Census 2010 household data, as reflected in Attachment A,42 we find that Time Warner 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 Communities.43 Therefore, the
second part of the competing provider test is satisfied for each of the Attachment A Communities. Based
on the foregoing, we conclude that Time Warner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that
both parts of the competing provider test are satisfied and Time Warner is subject to effective competition
in the Attachment A Communities.

B.

The Low Penetration Test

16.
Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject
to effective competition if it serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area. This
test is referred to as the “low penetration” test.44 Time Warner 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 Communities.
17.
Based upon the subscriber penetration level calculated by Time Warner, as reflected in
Attachment B, we find that Time Warner has demonstrated the percentage of households subscribing to
its cable service is less than 30 percent of the households in the Attachment B Communities. Therefore,
the low penetration test is satisfied as to the Attachment B Communities.


42 The first seven franchise areas for which DBS subscribership calculations are made in Exhibit E to the Petition
(the Towns of Elon, Gibsonville, Jamestown, Madison, Mebane, Oak Ridge, and Whitsett) are not listed on the title
page of the Petition and are not included in Time Warner’s Certificate of Service. Accordingly, we consider the
Company not to be seeking findings of effective competition in them.
43 Attachment A shows DBS subscribership in the City of High Point to be 15.0029%. This “exceeds fifteen
percent,” however slightly, and thus satisfies the numerical requirement of the second part of the competing provider
test, 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B)(ii). Time Warner Cable Inc., 26 FCC Rcd 2095, 2097, ¶ 7 (2011).
44 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A).
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

III.

ORDERING CLAUSES

18.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that the petition for a determination of effective
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Time Warner Entertainment/Advance-Newhouse
Partnership

IS GRANTED

.
19.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

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

IS REVOKED

.
20.
This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commission’s rules.45
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau


45 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

ATTACHMENT A

CSR 8051-E

COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT-


ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP


2010 Census

Estimated DBS

Communities

CUIDs

CPR*

Households

Subscribers

Unincorporated Alamance
NC0531
34.19
18,808
6,430
County
Village of Alamance
NC0532
20.92
365
76
City of Archdale
NC0350
23.12
4,556
1,053
City of Asheboro
NC0206
28.28
9,880
2,794
Town of Biscoe
NC0410
42.68
539
230
City of Burlington
NC0006
26.30
20,632
5,426
Town of Candor
NC0724
51.82
296
153
City of Eden
NC0214
20.69
6,645
1,375
Town of Franklinville
NC0841
46.50
388
180
City of Graham
NC0208
31.37
5,801
1,820
Town of Green Level
NC1061
32.31
779
252
City of Greensboro
NC0011
16.10
111,731
17,987
NC0654
Unincorporated Guilford
NC0323
20.21
28,344
5,728
County
Town of Haw River
NC0582
34.39
921
317
City of High Point
NC0052
15.0029
40,912
6,138
NC0658
Town of Liberty
NC0540
48.36
1,091
528
Town of Mayodan
NC0215
23.61
1,173
277
Town of Pleasant Garden
NC1048
20.71
1,690
350
Town of Ramseur
NC0577
38.85
640
249
City of Randelman
NC0420
28.81
1,739
501
Unincorporated Randolph
NC0352
30.26
28,210
8,537
County
NC0421
City of Reidsville
NC0153
33.82
6,262
2,118
Unincorporated Rockingham
NC0758
31.63
22,104
6,993
County
NC0222
Town of Seagrove
NC0840
34.78
97
34
Town of Stokesdale
NC1055
21.29
1,823
388
City of Stoneville
NC0327
35.00
464
162
City of Trinity
NC0351
20.33
2,630
535
* CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate. Some CPRs may be not exactly correct because of fractional
DBS subscribers used in Time Warner's calculations but not reproduced above.
8

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-2283

ATTACHMENT B

CSR 8051-E

COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT-


ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP

Franchise Area

Cable

Penetration

Communities

CUIDs

Households

Subscribers

Percentage

Town of Sedalia
NC1069
249
7
2.81
Town of Star
NC0411
361
96
26.59
Town of Swepsonville
NC1059
469
72
15.35
Town of Wentworth
NC1068
1,043
4
.38
9

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.