Federal Communications Commission DA 07-912
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
SBC Cable Co.
Petition for Determination of 
Effective Competition in Shelbyville, IN
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR-7014-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  February 27, 2007 Released:  March 1, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. SBC Cable Co. d/b/a SusCom (“SusCom”) has filed a petition with the Commission 
pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission’s rules for a determination that its 
cable television system serving Shelbyville, Indiana (the “Community”) 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 opposition to the petition 
was filed.  We grant the petition finding that SusCom is subject to effective competition in the 
Community.
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
  
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 07-912
2
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 
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 has become the second largest, and DISH the third largest, MVPD 
provider.7 In view of this DBS growth data, and the data discussed below showing that more than 15 
percent of the households in the Community are DBS subscribers, we conclude that the population of the 
Shelbyville 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 SusCom has demonstrated that the Community 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.  SusCom sought to determine the competing provider penetration in the Community by purchasing a 
subscriber tracking report that identified the number of subscribers attributable to the DBS subscribers 
within the Community on a five-digit zip code basis.9  SusCom asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the 
Community because it has compared its residential subscriber totals for the Community against the 
aggregate totals of the DBS providers’ subscribers.10 Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber 
penetration levels, calculated using 2000 Census household data, we find that SusCom has demonstrated 
that the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs, other than the 
largest, is 29.38 percent in Shelbyville, Indiana.11 Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider 
test is satisfied.  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that SusCom has submitted sufficient evidence 
  
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, 
FCC 06-11 at ¶¶ 6, 13, 72-73 (rel. March 3, 2006). 
8See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). 
9 SusCom Petition at 7-8, Exhibits B & D. 
10 SusCom Petition at 8.  The petition also contains a Declaration from Donald Richey, Regional Manager for the 
Shelbyville Division of Susquehanna Communications attesting to the veracity of statements made in the petition.
11 3,362 DBS Subscribers ÷ 11,444 Shelbyville households = 29.38%.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-912
3
demonstrating that its cable system serving the Community is subject to competing provider effective 
competition.  
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by SBC Cable Co. d/b/a SusCom 
for a determination of effective competition in Shelbyville, Indiana IS GRANTED.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic service rates 
granted to the local franchising authority overseeing SBC Cable Co. d/b/a SusCom in the affected 
Community IS REVOKED.
7. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.12   
 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
 Steven A. Broeckaert
Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
 
  
12 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.