Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1787 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf 
of its subsidiaries and affiliates
Petition for Determination of Effective 
Competition in Richmond, Virginia (CUID 
VA0205)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7855-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  July 30, 2008 Released: July 30, 2008
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates , 
hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 
and 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission’s rules for a determination that Petitioner is subject to 
effective competition in those communities listed on Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as 
“Communities.”  Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective 
competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(“Communications Act”)1 and the Commission’s implementing rules,2 and is therefore exempt from cable 
rate regulation in the Communities because of the competing service provided by Verizon Virginia, Inc., 
hereinafter referred to as “Competitor.”  The petition is unopposed.  
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(l) of the Communications Act 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 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the Petition based on our 
finding that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachment A.
II. DISCUSSION
3. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject 
to effective competition if a local exchange carrier (“LEC”), or its affiliate, offers video programming 
services directly to subscribers by any means (other than direct-to-home satellite services) in the franchise 
area of an unaffiliated cable operator which is providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if 
  
1See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).
247 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).
347 C.F.R. § 76.906.
4See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
5See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1787 
2
the video programming services offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services 
provided by the competing unaffiliated cable operator.6 This test is otherwise referred to as the “LEC” 
test.
4. The Commission has stated that the incumbent cable operator must show that the LEC 
intends to build-out its cable system within a reasonable period of time if it has not completed its build-
out; that no regulatory, technical, or other impediments to household service exist; that the LEC is 
marketing its services so that potential customers are aware that the LEC’s services may be purchased; 
that the LEC has actually begun to provide services; the extent of such services; the ease with which 
service may be expanded; and the expected date for completion of construction in the franchise area.7 It 
is undisputed that these Communities are served by both Petitioner and Competitor, a local exchange 
carrier, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated.  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 programming8 and is supported in this petition with copies of 
channel lineups for Competitor.9 Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated that the Competitor has 
commenced providing video programming service within the Communities, has marketed its services in a 
manner that makes potential subscribers reasonably aware of its services, and otherwise satisfied the LEC 
effective competition test consistent with the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Cable Reform 
Order.10
5. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that its cable system serving the Communities has met the LEC test and is subject to 
effective competition.
  
6See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(D).
7See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd 5296, 
5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16 (1999) (“Cable Reform Order”).
8See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g).  See also Petition at 11.
9See Petition at 11 and Exhibits 12 and 13.
10See Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16.  See also Petition at 4-11.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1787 
3
III. ORDERING CLAUSES 
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its 
subsidiaries and affiliates IS GRANTED. 
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates 
granted to any of the Communities set forth on Attachment A IS REVOKED. 
8. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.11
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
1147 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1787 
4
ATTACHMENT A
CSR 7855-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ON BEHALF OF 
ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES
 
Communities CUID  
Richmond VA0205