Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4259
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Time Warner Cable Inc.
Petition for Determination of Effective Competition 
in Five Local Franchise Areas in Arizona and 
California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7226-E 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: October 12, 2007 Released: October 16, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Time Warner Cable Inc. (“Time Warner”) 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 its 
cable systems serving the communities listed in Attachment A (the “Communities”) are subject to 
effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
("Communications Act"),1 and the Commission's implementing rules,2 and are therefore exempt from 
cable rate regulation in the Communities.  No opposition to the petition was filed.
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(1) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 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  Based on the record in this proceeding, Time 
Warner has met this burden.
II.         DISCUSSION
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 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 543(1).
2 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).
3 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
4 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
5 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4259
2
programming distributors ("MVPD"), 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.6 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.7  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 
this period.8 In view of this DBS growth data, and the data discussed below showing that more than 15 
percent of the households in each of the communities listed on Attachment A are DBS subscribers, we 
conclude that the population of the communities 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.9 We further find that 
Time Warner has demonstrated that the Communities listed on Attachment A are 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.  Time Warner sought to determine the competing provider penetration in the Communities listed on 
Attachment A by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from the Satellite Broadcasting and 
Communications Association (“SBCA”) that identified the number of subscribers attributable to the DBS 
providers within the Communities on a zip code basis.  Time Warner determined the competing provider 
penetration levels in the franchise areas by applying a five-digit zip code allocation method.10  Time 
Warner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in Yuma, Arizona, because its subscribership exceeds the 
aggregate DBS subscribership for those franchise areas.11  
5. With regard to San Luis and Somerton, Arizona, and Winterhaven, California, Time 
Warner contends that although it cannot demonstrate that it is the largest MVPD in these franchise areas
because the SBCA aggregates the DBS subscribership figures, it still has satisfied the second prong of 
the competing provider test for these Communities.12  Time Warner claims to be subject to competing 
provider competition in these communities because DBS penetration exceeds 15 percent of occupied 
households, and because the number of Time Warner subscribers also exceeds 15 percent of the occupied 
  
6 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
7 See MediaOne of Georgia, 12 FCC Rcd 19406 (1997).
8 Twelfth Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, FCC 
06-11 at ¶¶ 6, 13, 72-73, 21 FCC Rcd 2503 (rel. March 3, 2006). 
9See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). 
10 Id. at 8-9.
11 Time Warner Petition at 7. 
12 Id. at 8.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4259
3
households, as reported by the 2000 Census.13  
6. Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels as reflected in Attachment 
A, calculated using 2000 Census household data, 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 communities listed on Attachment A.  Therefore, the 
second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Time 
Warner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that its cable systems serving those four
communities mentioned above are subject to competing provider effective competition. 
B. Low Penetration Effective Competition 
7. As for Yuma County, Arizona, Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act 
provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate 
regulation, if “fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service 
of the cable system.”14  Time Warner provided information showing that less than 30 percent of the 
households within Yuma County subscribe to its cable services.15 Accordingly, we conclude that Time 
Warner has demonstrated the existence of low penetration effective competition under our rules.  
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by Time Warner Cable Inc for a 
determination of effective competition in the Communities listed thereon IS GRANTED.  
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates
granted to the local franchising authorities overseeing Time Warner Cable Inc IS REVOKED.
10. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.16
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
13 Id.
1447 U.S.C § 543(l)(l)(A).
15 5,718 Time Warner subscribers ÷ 53,848 Yuma County households = 10.62 percent.
1647 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4259
4
Attachment A
Cable Operator Subject to Competing Provider Effective Competition
TIME WARNER CABLE INC: 7226-E  
2000
 DBS Census
Communities CUIDS CPR* Subscribers+ Household
San Luis AZ0165 32.85% 1,512 3,018
Somerton AZ0039 32.85% 1,512 1,818
Yuma AZ0019 27.70% 11,268 26,649
Winterhaven CA0696 35.75% 2,604 183
CPR= Percent DBS penetration
+ = See Cable Operator Petitions