Federal Communications Commission DA 09-70 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Time Warner Cable Inc.
Petition for Determination of Effective 
Competition in Mount Vernon, New York (CUID 
NY 0398)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 8087-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  January 27, 2009 Released:  January 28, 2009
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Time Warner Cable Inc., 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 the community listed on 
Attachment A and hereinafter referred to as the “Community.”  Petitioner alleges that its cable system 
serving the Community 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 Community because of the 
competing service provided by Verizon New York 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 Community 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 
the video programming services offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services 
  
1See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(D).
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 09-70 
2
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 the Community is 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 Community, 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 Community has met the LEC test and is subject to 
effective competition.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES 
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Time Warner Cable Inc., IS GRANTED. 
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates 
granted to any of the Community 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
  
6See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(D).
7See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd 5296, 
5305-06, ¶¶ 13-15 (1999) (“Cable Reform Order”).
8See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g).  See also Petition at 5.
9See Petition at Exhs. A, D.
10See Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-15.  See also Petition at 3-5.
1147 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-70 
3
ATTACHMENT A
CSR 8087-E
COMMUNITY SERVED BY TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
 
Community CUID  
Mount Vernon NY 0398