Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2796
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Marcus Cable Associates LLC
d/b/a Charter Communications
Petition for Determination of 
Effective Competition in Burbank, CA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR-6949-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  June 22, 2007   Released:  June 26, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Marcus Cable Associates LLC d/b/a Charter Communications (“Charter”) has filed a
petition with the Commission pursuant to 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission’s rules for a 
determination that its cable television system serving Burbank, California is subject to effective 
competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(“Communications Act”), and is therefore exempt from rate regulation.1 No oppositions to the petition 
were filed.  We grant the petition finding that Charter is subject to effective competition in Burbank.   
2.  In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be 
subject to effective competition,2 as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules.3  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.4
II. DISCUSSON
3. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject 
to effective competition if its franchise area is (a) served by at least two unaffiliated multi-channel video 
programming distributors ("MVPD"), each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 
  
1 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 76.907; 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).
2 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
3 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
4 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2796
2
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.5 Turning to the first prong of this test, we find that the DBS service of 
DirecTV Inc. (“DirectTV”) and DISH Network (“Dish”) is presumed to be technically available due to its 
nationwide satellite footprint, and presumed to be actually available if households in a franchise area are 
made reasonably aware that the service is available.6  The two DBS providers’ subscriber growth reached 
approximately 26.1 million as of June 2005, comprising approximately 27.7 percent of all MVPD 
subscribers nationwide; DirecTV was the second largest, and DISH the third largest, MVPD provider during 
that period.7 In view of this DBS growth data, and the data discussed below showing that more than 15 
percent of the households in Burbank are DBS subscribers, we conclude that the population of the 
franchise area at issue here may be deemed reasonably aware of the availability of DBS services for 
purposes of the first prong of the competing provider test.  With respect to the issue of program 
comparability, we find that the programming of the DBS providers satisfies the Commission's program 
comparability criterion because the DBS providers offer substantially more than 12 channels of video 
programming, including more than one non-broadcast channel.8 We find further that Charter has 
demonstrated that Burbank is served by at least two unaffiliated MVPDs, namely the two DBS providers, 
each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the 
franchise area.  Therefore, the first prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.
4. 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.  Charter sought to determine the competing provider penetration in Burbank through use of data 
obtained through the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (“SBCA”).9 Charter states 
that it hired Media Business Corporation (“MBC”) to determine the specific zip-plus-four (“Zip+4”) zip 
codes located within Burbank.10 Charter states that it then provided this list of Zip+4 zip codes to SBCA, 
which in turn determined the number of DBS subscribers in each Zip+4 within Burbank.11  Charter also
asserts that it is the largest MVPD in Burbank.12 Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration 
levels, calculated using 2000 Census household data, we find that Charter has demonstrated that the 
number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs, other than the largest, is 
  
5 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
6 See MediaOne of Georgia, 12 FCC Rcd 19406 (1997).
7 Twelfth Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 21 
FCC Rcd 2503, ¶¶ 6, 13, 72-73 (2006). 
8See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). 
9 Charter Petition at 5. 
10 Id. at 6.
11 Id. and Exhibit 4.  In Exhibit 4, Charter did not provide the list of the zip codes associated with the SBCA report.  
On February 23, 2007, the Media Bureau requested additional information from Charter regarding its SBCA 
submission.  See Letter to Steven J. Horvitz, Esq. et al. from Steven A. Broeckaert, Deputy Chief, Policy Division, 
Media Bureau (February 23, 2007).  On March 16, 2007, Charter submitted a supplement to its petition with the list 
of zip codes used by SBCA in preparing its subscriber report for Charter.  See Letter and Attachment to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Steven J. Horvitz, Esq. (March 16, 2007).  Burbank did not oppose, or otherwise 
respond, to Charter’s supplement.    
12 Charter Petition at 5; see also Declaration of Denise Jones-Williams, Director of Regulatory Compliance for 
Charter.    
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2796
3
17.42 percent in Burbank.13 Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.  
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Charter has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that its 
cable system serving Burbank is subject to competing provider effective competition.  
III. ORDRING CLAUSES
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by Marcus Cable Associates LLC 
d/b/a Charter Communications for a determination of effective competition in Burbank, California IS
GRANTED.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic service rates 
granted to any local franchising authority overseeing Marcus Cable Associates LLC d/b/a Charter 
Communications in Burbank, California IS REVOKED.
7. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.14   
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
 
  
13 Burbank (7,247 DBS Subscribers ÷ 41,608 Burbank households = 17.42%). 
14 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.