Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2465 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Time Warner Cable Inc., and Time Warner
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership
25 Petitions for Determination of Effective 
Competition in 229 Communities in New Jersey 
and New York 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7234-E
CSR 7235-E
CSR 7236-E
CSR 7369-E
CSR 7370-E
CSR 7385-E
CSR 7386-E
CSR 7388-E
CSR 7404-E
CSR 7405-E
CSR 7406-E
CSR 7483-E
CSR 7491-E
CSR 7492-E
CSR 7494-E
CSR 7497-E
CSR 7499-E
CSR 7501-E
CSR 7536-E
CSR 7547-E
CSR 7555-E
CSR 7556-E
CSR 7557-E
CSR 7559-E
CSR 7560-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  November 6, 2008 Released:  November 7, 2008
By Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves two petitions1 that the cable operator 
Time Warner Cable Inc., and Time Warner and Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership 
(collectively, “Time Warner” or the “Company”) filed about two decisions of this Commission.  Those 
decisions concerned Time Warner’s requests to have the rates for its basic cable service deregulated in 
approximately 760 franchise areas (“Communities”) in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.  The 
decisions granted Time Warner’s requests for the vast majority of the Communities, but denied deregulation 
in 229 of them (3 in New Jersey and 226 in New York).2 The petitions seek reconsideration of the 229 
denials.  The only opposition to the petitions that was filed concerns the 3 New Jersey Communities and 
  
1 Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. filed by Time Warner on Sept. 12, 2008; Petition for 
Reconsideration in CSR 7547-E filed by Time Warner on Sept. 15, 2008.
2 Time Warner Cable Inc., & Time Warner & Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Memorandum Opinion 
& Order DA 08-1893 (“New York/Pennsylvania MO&O”), released Aug. 13, 2008, available at  2008 WL 3450890; 
Time Warner Cable, Inc., Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 08-1917 (“New Jersey MO&O”), released Aug. 15, 
2008, available at 2008 WL 3823069.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2465 
2
was filed by the Division of Rate Counsel (the “DRC”) of the Department of the Public Advocate for the 
State of New Jersey.3 Time Warner filed a reply to it.4 We are resolving both of Time Warner’s petitions 
in this one Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration for reasons of efficiency and economy.  
2. The DRC, which opposes the parts of our New Jersey MO&O that favor Time Warner, 
also filed an Application for Review of those parts of the New Jersey MO&O.  The DRC requests that that 
pleading and Time Warner’s Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7547-E be consolidated and decided by 
the full Commission.5 We deny the DRC’s request.  Section 1.104(c) of our rules specifically provides that 
“If in any matter one party files a petition for reconsideration and a second party files an application for 
review, the Commission will withhold action on the application for review until final action has been 
taken on the petition for reconsideration.”6 This allows all issues to be thoroughly considered by the staff 
and conserves the Commissioners’ resources until then.  
II. ANALYSIS
A. The Original Petitions and Memorandum Opinions and Orders
3. In the original petitions that led to the decisions of which Time Warner seeks 
reconsideration, Time Warner alleged that it was subject to so much competition in the 229 Communities 
that its rates for basic cable service there should be deregulated.  In particular, Time Warner alleged that it 
was subject to “competing provider effective competition” pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,7 in each of the 229 Communities.  This form of effective 
competition required Time Warner to make two showings about each Community.  The first, which Time 
Warner successfully made, was that in each Community it faced certain kinds of competitors 
(multichannel video programming distributors or “MVPDs”).8 The second showing that Time Warner 
was required to make, and the one that it failed to make credible, concerned the success in winning 
subscribers that Time Warner’s competitor MVPDs had achieved in each Community.  Specifically, Time 
Warner had to prove that, in each Community, in excess of 15 percent of the households subscribed to 
MVPD services other than Time Warner’s.9
4. Time Warner’s petitions included statistical evidence that stated, for each Community, 
Time Warner’s own market share and the combined market shares of its competitors, who were the Direct 
Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) providers DIRECTV and Dish Network.  The decisions of which Time 
Warner seeks reconsideration found fatal flaws in Time Warner’s statistical evidence.  First, Time 
Warner’s evidence showed that, in the 229 Communities, its own market share and that of the two DBS 
providers combined was in excess of 100 percent.10 Second, Time Warner stated that in 33 of those 
  
3 Opposition to Time Warner’s Petition for Reconsideration on Behalf of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel 
(“DRC Opposition”), filed in CSR 7547-E on Oct. 10, 2008.
4 Reply in CSR 7547-E, filed Oct. 16, 2008.
5 DRC Opposition at 2, 7-8.  
6 47 C.F.R. § 1.104(c).
7 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B).
8 Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B)(i) requires that each Community be “served by at least two unaffiliated 
multichannel video programming distributors each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 
percent of the households in the franchise area.”
9 Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B)(ii) requires that “the number of households subscribing to programming 
services offered by multichannel video programming distributors other than the largest multichannel video 
programming distributor,” which was Time Warner, “exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.”  
10 The Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. states at 6 that the New York/Pennsylvania MO&O erred in 
including the Village of Bridgewater (NY0296) among the Communities where the combined market shares of Time 
Warner and the DBS providers exceeded 100%.  The statistics stated in the MO&O about subscribership for that 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2465 
3
Communities its own market share was over 100 percent; in three of those Communities, it was over 200 
percent; and, in one Community, Time Warner stated that its own market share was 771 percent.11 It 
strains credulity for a company to claim that it has significant competition in a market where it claims a 
market share in excess of 100 percent.  
5. A final evident flaw in Time Warner’s statistical evidence appeared in pairs of 
Communities that bordered each other and had the same name.  In 15 such pairs of Communities, Time 
Warner stated that it and/or the DBS providers had subscriberships that were so different as to strain 
credulity.  For example, Time Warner stated that its own subscribership in the Town of St. Johnsville was 
nine percent and, in the neighboring Village of St. Johnsville, was 69 percent;12 and that the DBS 
providers’ market share was 19 percent in the Town of Groton and, in the neighboring Village of Groton, 
was nearly twice as high, 37 percent.13  
6. Time Warner’s petitions offered no explanation for the obviously inaccurate and 
unreliable data that they contained.  Indeed, the petitions showed no awareness of these patent flaws.  
Attached to the petitions were sworn declarations personally signed by an officer of the Company and its 
outside counsel attesting, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, to the accuracy of the 
factual statements in the petitions.14
  
(...continued from previous page)
Community add up to 99.62% and round to 100%.  New York/Pennsylvania MO&O at Att. C.  And, on closer 
evaluation, we determined that the New York/Pennsylvania MO&O mis-copied Time Warner’s data, mistakenly using 
the DBS subscribership for the Town of Bridgewater instead of the Village.  Time Warner’s actual data state Time 
Warner’s subscribership in the Village of Bridgewater as 65.20% and the DBS providers’ as 44.98%, for a total of 
110.18%.  Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7501-E at Exhs. A & F.  Thus, the Village of Bridgewater is a 
Community in which Time Warner’s evidence states that its own market share and that of the two DBS providers 
combined was in excess of 100%.
11 New York/Pennsylvania R&O at Att. C; New Jersey R&O, R&O at Att. C.
12 Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7235-E, Exh. A. 
13 Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7492-E, Exh. E. 
Other occurrences of evident flaw in Time Warner’s evidence are, in CSR 7235-E, the Town and Village of 
Canajoharie (Time Warner subscribership of 6% and 69% (respectively and rounded off to the nearest whole 
number); in CSR 7236-E, the Town and Village of Argyle (DBS subscribership of 32% and 57%); in CSR 7385-E, 
the Town and Village of Richmondville (Time Warner subscribership of 19% and 88% and DBS subscribership of 
28% and 44%) and the Town and Village of Schaghticoke (DBS subscription of 16% and 28%); in CSR 7406-E, the 
Town and Village of Gainesville (DBS subscribership of 28% and 45%); in CSR 7492-E, the Town and Village of 
Groton (Time Warner subscribership of  11% and 75% and DBS subscribership of 19% and 37%); in CSR 7499-E, 
the Town and Village of Newport (Time Warner subscribership of 7% and 98% and DBS subscribership of 14% and 
34%); in CSDR 7556-E, the Town and Village of Franklin (DBS subscribership of 23% and 44%), the Town and 
Village of Otego (DBS subscribership of 15% and 36%), and the Town and Village of Oxford (DBS subscribership 
of 25% and 38%); in CSR 7557-E, in the Town and Village of Fabius (Time Warner subscribership of 20% and 57% 
and DBS subscribership of 32% and 45%); in CSR 7559-E, the Town and Village of Sherburne (DBS subscribership 
of 49% and 30%); and in CSR 7560-E, the Town and Village of Burke (DBS subscribership of 30% and 49%) and 
Town and Village of Waddington (DBS subscribership of 39% and 23%).  Of the foregoing pairs of Communities, 
one of each pair was among the 229 Communities for which the Commission denied deregulation.  There may be 
more such pairs among the Communities for which the Commission granted deregulation.
14 See, e.g., Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7406-E, in which Time Warner stated that its own subscribership in 
the Village of LeRoy, New York, was 771.43%, at 10 (signed statement by outside counsel that, to the best of his 
knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the petition “was well grounded in fact”); id. at 
11 (declaration under penalty of perjury by President of the Rochester Division of Time Warner Cable Inc., that 
statements made in the petition and facts contained therein “are true and correct” to the best of his knowledge, 
information and belief).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2465 
4
7. The Commission found that these conspicuous flaws in Time Warner’s own evidence 
made its showings in the 229 Communities “obviously inaccurate and unreliable.”15 Accordingly, the 
Company failed to sustain its burden of proof in those Communities and the Commission denied the 
petitions for deregulation in them.  The Commission hypothesized in its MO&Os that a possible source of 
Time Warner’s flawed data likely reflected a Community with a very small population included in a five-
digit zip code with a very large population, and stated that Time Warner could re-file using nine-digit zip 
code data that would provide more precise data.16
B. The Petitions for Reconsideration
8. Time Warner petitions for reconsideration, asking that the Commission reverse itself and 
find that the Company’s evidence showed that competing provider effective competition does exist in the 
229 Communities.  Pointing to its evidence showing DBS subscribership in excess of 15 percent, Time 
Warner asks that we disregard the rest of the evidence it submitted, especially the evidence of its own 
subscribership and the combined subscribership of itself and the DBS providers.17 We decline to do so.  
Cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition.18 We require a cable operator to 
sustain a burden of proof that its cable system is subject to effective competition by producing evidence 
that effective competition is present in its franchise area.19 When a cable operator presents evidence that 
is patently unreliable as described in the foregoing paragraphs, it fails to sustain its burden of proof.  
9. Time Warner attempts to explain the estimates of its own market share by alleging 
generally that in some small rural communities, a significant number of households may subscribe to both 
cable service and DBS service, producing subscribership estimates slightly over 100%.20 Or, Time 
Warner theorizes, perhaps some households in one Community receive their mail in another Community 
and therefore appear on Time Warner’s records as residing in the latter.21 We cannot find merit in these 
explanations, for several reasons.  First, Time Warner offers no evidence that these conditions actually 
exist in any of the 229 Communities, much less explain those instances where the subscribership for all 
MVPDs exceeded 200 percent.  Second, the Company has not attempted to comply with our rules by 
showing that evidence of such conditions, if it exists, consists of recent events, changed circumstances, 
facts that Time Warner did not know of earlier and could not have known through the exercise of ordinary 
diligence, or facts the consideration of which is “required in the public interest.”22 Third, even if Time 
Warner were able to provide data in support of this explanation for Communities in which it has 
subscribership in excess of 100%, it still fails to take into consideration those households that may (a) 
subscribe to a competitive cable provider or local exchange carrier or (b) not subscribe to any form of pay 
television service.
10. Finally, Time Warner criticizes the Commission’s suggestion that it re-file its DBS 
  
15 New York/Pennsylvania R&O at ¶ 10; New Jersey R&O, R&O at ¶ 8.  The evidently flawed evidence submitted by 
Time Warner, described in paragraph 4 above, was not necessary for denial of the petitions and was therefore not 
mentioned in the Commission’s Memorandum Opinions and Orders.
16 New York/Pennsylvania R&O at ¶ 10; New Jersey R&O, R&O at ¶ 8.  
17 Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. at 3-6; Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7547-E at 3-6.
18 47 C.F.R. § 76.906; see also 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2), (l).
19 47 C.F.R. § 76.907(b).
20 Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. at 6 (theorizing that perhaps “where one or more DBS Providers 
may not provide local-into-local broadcast service or a full complement of all local broadcast HD and multicast SD 
streams, . . . some subscribers [may] receive a combination of ‘basic’ service from the cable operator and 
‘expanded’ video services from a DBS Provider”; Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7547-E at 6.
21 Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. at 7.
22 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(2), (c)(1, 2); DRC Opposition at 4-5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2465 
5
subscribership estimates based on nine-digit “Zip+Four” codes.23 Time Warner characterizes the use of 
nine-digit zip code data as “prohibitively expensive in the context of 226 small communities,”24 but fails 
to provide any support for this assertion.  We doubt that such data would be prohibitively expensive for 
Time Warner, because the major cable operators Charter25 and Mediacom26 commonly provide such data 
in proceedings for rate deregulation.  The Commission was merely suggesting a new approach to Time 
Warner, which the Company is free to follow or not as it chooses.  We urge the Company, if it does not 
accept the Commission’s suggestion, to intensify the efforts that it describes in its Petitions for 
Reconsideration to produce credible data in support of its petitions for cable rate deregulation.27
III. ORDERING CLAUSE
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed in the 
captioned proceedings by Time Warner Cable Inc., and Time Warner and Entertainment-
Advance/Newhouse Partnership ARE DENIED.
12. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.28
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
23 Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. at 7; Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7547-E at 3-4.  
24 Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. at 4 n.10.
25 See, e.g., Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7830-E at Exh. 3 (filed April 3, 2008, by Charter for St. James Parish, 
Louisiana); Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7546-E at Exh. 3 (filed Aug. 31, 2007, by Charter for Hoover, 
Alabama); in CSR 6916-E (Petition for Special Relief by Charter in St. Louis, Missouri), Letter from Steven J. 
Horvitz, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, counsel for Petitioner, to Steven Broeckaert, Deputy Chief, Policy 
Division, Media Bureau, dated March 30, 2007, at 2.
26 See, e.g., Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7689-E at Exh. E (dated Nov. 2, 2007, by Mediacom for Hudson, 
Iowa); Petition for Special Relief in CSR 7688-E at Exh. E (dated Nov. 1, 2007, by Mediacom for Britt, Iowa).
27 Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7234-E et al. at 6-7; Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7547-E at 6.
28 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.