********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of:               )
                                )
Cox Communications Hampton Roads, Inc.)      CSR-4793-E
Cox Communications Rhode Island, Inc.,)
Virginia Beach, Virginia, et al.)
                                )
Greater Philadelphia Cablevision, Inc.)      CSR-4821-E
d/b/a/ Greater Media Cable,     )
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania      )  
                                )
KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest Inc. )          CSR-4816-E
San Antonio, Texas, et al.      )
d/b/a Paragon Cable             )
                                )
Time Warner Cable,              )       CSR-4833-E
Arcadia, New York, et al.       )
                                )
Time Warner Cable,              )       CSR-4748-E
Bakersfield, California, et al. )
                                )
Time Warner Cable,               )      CSR-4772-E
Ballston, New York, et al.       )
                                )
Time Warner Cable,              )       CSR-4829-E
Brighton, New York, et al.      )
                                )
TKR Cable Company               )       CSR-4910-E
Maple Shade, New Jersey et al.  )
                                )
Wade Cablevision                )       CSR-4843-E
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania      )
                                    
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  June 3, 1997               Released:  June 5, 1997

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   Introduction

     1.     The cable operators listed in the above-captioned proceedings have filed petitions
claiming they are subject to effective competition from an affiliate of a local exchange carrier
("LEC") pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
("Communications Act").  Section 623(l)(1)(D) provides that a cable operator is subject to effective
competition where "a local exchange carrier or its affiliate" offers comparable video programming
in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator which is also providing cable service in that
franchise area.  The cable operators in these proceedings contend that they face effective
competition in their franchise areas from CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. ("CAI"), a multichannel video
programming distributor, or its affiliate, CS Wireless Systems, Inc.  The cable operators maintain
that CAI is affiliated with two LECs, Bell Atlantic Corporation ("Bell Atlantic") and NYNEX
Corporation ("NYNEX") through a general partnership known as the BANX partnership.  The
central issue in these proceedings is whether CAI is a LEC "affiliate" for purposes of finding
effective competition under Section 623(l)(1)(D).  Because the question of CAI's affiliation is the
pivotal issue in each of the effective competition proceedings cited above, we are hereby
consolidating the proceedings for resolution in a single order.

II.  Discussion

     2.   In a previously decided case, Time Warner Cable, we resolved the issue of CAI's LEC
affiliation by concluding that CAI is not currently an affiliate of either Bell Atlantic or NYNEX for
purposes of the LEC effective competition test.  Having reviewed the pleadings filed in each of the
above-captioned proceedings, we find that the arguments presented therein concerning the affiliation
issue were, in all relevant respects, previously raised and resolved in the Time Warner Cable case. 
We conclude, therefore, that our holding in the Time Warner Cable case is equally applicable to the
proceedings referenced above.  Accordingly, we deny the effective competition petitions filed by
the cable operators in the above-captioned proceedings on the grounds that CAI is not currently a
LEC affiliate.  

III. Ordering Clauses

     3.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for Determination of Effective
Competition filed in the above-captioned proceedings are DENIED.

     4.   This action is taken pursuant to the interim rules adopted in Implementation of Cable
Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and is without prejudice to any
further action taken by the Commission in adopting final rules pursuant to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking contained therein.

     5.   This action is taken pursuant to delegate authority under Section 0.321 of the
Commission's rules, as amended.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Meredith J. Jones
                         Chief, Cable Services Bureau