Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2515
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter
Charter Communications, on behalf of its 
subsidiaries and affiliates,
Petition For Determination of Effective 
Competition in New Hanover County, North 
Carolina (CUIDs NC0152, NC0369)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 8242-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 1, 2009 Released:  December 1, 2009
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau :
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Memorandum Opinion & Order resolves procedural questions that have arisen in the 
most recent litigation concerning cable rate regulation and effective competition in part of New Hanover 
County, North Carolina (the “County”).  Charter Communications (“Charter”)1 filed a “Petition for 
Reconsideration of Rate Regulation Certification” (“Petition”) on November 12, 2009.  Our rules provide 
that such petitions automatically stay the County’s rate regulation “pending the outcome of the 
reconsideration proceeding.”2 Accordingly, the County may not assert rate regulation authority over 
Charter until and subject to release of the Commission’s final findings in this matter.
2. To regulate the Charter’s rates in part of New Hanover County, North Carolina, the 
County government filed a Form 3283 in 1993.  By operation of the Commission’s rules,4 30 days later 
the County acquired the authority to regulate Charter’s rates.  In 2004 Charter filed a petition for a finding 
of effective competition.  The Commission granted Charter’s petition and revoked the County’s rate 
regulation authority.5  
3. The County later petitioned for re-certification to regulate Charter’s rates on the grounds 
of changed circumstances and alleged that Charter was no longer subject to effective competition.  
Charter, in response, filed a new petition claiming that it was still subject to effective competition.  Ruling 
on these rival petitions earlier this year, the Commission found that Charter had not shown it was subject 
  
1 For brevity’s sake, we are using one name, Charter, for corporate names that have changed over the years.
2 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(b)(1).
3 “Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates and Initial Finding of Lack of 
Effective Competition,” http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form328/328.pdf (visited Nov. 24, 2009).
4 47 C.F.R. § 76.910(e).
5 Charter Commun., LLC, 19 FCC Rcd 7003 (2004).  In this and all subsequent litigations, Charter alleged that 
circumstances – the area served by Charter and/or the number of homes served by Charter or its competitors – had 
changed since the evidence introduced in the previous litigation.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2515
2
to effective competition.6 The Commission allowed the County to resume regulating Charter’s rates upon 
compliance with the certification procedures set forth in our rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.910 et seq, which 
requires to County to execute a new Form 328.7  The County did this and the Commission received the 
County’s new Form on September 24, 2009.  Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, the County could 
resume regulating Charter’s rates 30 days later (on October 26, 30 days plus a weekend). 
4. On November 12, 2009, Charter filed its Petition alleging that, under current 
circumstances, it was again subject to effective competition.8 Our rules provide that such petitions 
automatically stay the franchising authority’s certification “pending the outcome of the reconsideration 
proceeding.”9  
II. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
5. In a series of e-mails with the Bureau and Charter,10 the County has asked several 
procedural questions.  These are (1) whether Charter’s Petition is authorized; (2) whether it is the kind of 
petition for reconsideration that triggers an automatic stay of rate regulation; (3) whether Charter’s 
Petition was timely; and (4) how many days the County has to respond to Charter’s Petition.  
6. First, the County correctly notes that our most recent decision offered Charter the 
opportunity to file a petition for a finding of effective competition by initiating a new proceeding, 11but 
then wrongly argues that this language foreclosed to Charter the right to file a petition for reconsideration.  
Nothing in our decision prevents Charter from filing a petition for reconsideration as specifically 
contemplated by our rules.  Charter’s Petition is authorized and proper.
7. Second, the County argues that the only petitions for reconsideration that stay rate 
regulation are ones filed after the filing of a first Form 328, and that subsequent forms and petitions do 
not stay rate regulation.12 The County reads our rules too narrowly.  The Commission rule that provides 
for reconsideration of automatic certifications of rate authority, 47 C.F.R. § 76.911, does not say that it 
applies only to first filings and certifications and does not apply to subsequent ones.  The rule’s terms 
apply to certifications to regulate rates generally and without qualification.  Accordingly, section 76.911 
of our rules governs Charter’s Petition and, pursuant to section 76.911(b), that Petition stays the County’s 
resumption of regulating Charter’s rates pending the outcome of this reconsideration proceeding.  If the 
petition for reconsideration is ultimately denied, the cable operator may be required to issue refunds for 
any charges in excess of authorized rates for a period of up to one year from the date the authorized rates 
are implemented.13
  
6 County of New Hanover, North Carolina, 24 FCC Rcd 10130 (2009).  See also County of New Hanover, North 
Carolina, Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 08-2344 (rel. Oct. 24, 2008), available at 2008 WL 4693164.
7 County of New Hanover, North Carolina, 24 FCC Rcd at 10136, ¶ 22. 
8 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(a)(1).
9 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(b)(1).
10 E-mail from Catharine Rice, Action, Audits, LLC, consultant to the County, to John W. Beresford, Esq., 
Commission counsel (Nov. 19, 2009, 4:27 PM) (“First E-Mail”); E-Mail from Ms. Rice to Mr. Berresford (Nov. 20, 
2009, 9:47 AM) (“Second E-Mail”); E-Mail from Steven Horvitz, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, counsel for 
Charter, to Mr. Berresford (Nov. 20, 2009, 12;51 PM) (“Third E-Mail”); E-mail from Ms. Rice to Mr. Berresford 
(Nov. 20, 2009, 3:07 PM) (“Fourth E-Mail”).
11 First E-Mail at 1; County of New Hanover, North Carolina, 24 FCC Rcd at 10136, ¶ 21.  
12 First E-Mail at 1. 
13 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2515
3
8. The third issue is the timeliness of Charter’s Petition.  As noted above, the date for the 
County’s automatic certification to regulate Charter’s rates was October 26th, 2009.  The deadline for a 
petition for reconsideration of that certification was 30 days later, November 25th.14 Charter’s Petition 
was filed on November 12th, and is therefore timely.  
9. Finally, with regard to the number of days the County has to respond to Charter’s 
Petition, our rules provide that the opposition to a petition for reconsideration is due ten days after the 
petition is filed (in this case, November 23rd, ten days after November 12th plus a weekend), and a reply 
is due seven days thereafter (in this case, November 30th).15 The County has requested an extension of 
time in which to file its opposition and, although extensions of time are not routinely granted,16 this 
proceeding is unusually complicated, involving disputes about material geographic areas and the proper 
method of counting several kinds of housing in those areas.  The County notes the complexity of 
Charter’s filing,17 the need to review it carefully, and the upcoming holidays.18  
10. Charter counters that, in preparing its Petition this past September, it chose the 
measurement advocated by the County (“homes passed”) and offered to work together with the County to 
agree on a calculation of effective competition.19 The County appears to have spurned Charter’s offer.20  
The County has had Charter’s Petition since mid-November and is not a newcomer to measuring effective 
competition.  Indeed, its previous filings in these proceedings have shown great familiarity with different 
parts of New Hanover County and facility with demographic data about it.  Accordingly, we will hold the 
County to reasonable promptness in examining Charter’s data and preparing its opposition.  Taking into 
consideration all the factors noted above, we require the County to file its response to Charter’s Petition 
for Reconsideration no more than twenty (20) days after the date of release of this Memorandum Opinion 
and Order.  We further require that Charter file its reply to that response no more than fourteen (14) days 
after the County files its response.  
11. In light of the complexity of the facts herein, we sua sponte waive the page limitations 
that normally apply in reconsideration proceedings.21 We further caution the parties that, absent a 
showing of extraordinary circumstances, no pleadings in addition to the opposition and reply (as outlined 
in the preceding paragraph) will be allowed.  We urge the parties to observe the Commission’s rules 
concerning the format of pleadings22 and to serve each other with copies of any further procedural 
questions submitted to the Bureau. 
  
14 Compare 47 U.S.C. § 405(a) (petitions for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of public notice of the 
action taken) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(a) (referencing § 1.106 of the Commission’s rules) with 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f) 
(same as § 405(a)) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(c) (when Commission procedures require the computation of a period of 
time after an act occurs (absent public notice), “the first day to be counted . . . is the day after the day on which the 
act . . . occurs”); see also Third E-Mail at 1.
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.106 (g, h).
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).
17 Second E-Mail at 1.
18 Fourth E-Mail at 1.
19 Petition, Exh. 1.
20 Third E-Mail at 2; Petition, Exh. 2.
21 47 C.F.R. § 1.106 (g, h).
22 See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49 – .52.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2515
4
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that further proceedings herein shall occur in accordance 
with the foregoing analysis and the deadlines set forth in paragraphs 10 and 11 above.
13. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.23
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
2347 C.F.R. § 0.283.