Federal Communications Commission DA 10-847
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Petition for Determination of Effective Competition
in Braintree, MA (CUID MA0217) 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7120-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 13, 2010  Released:  May 14, 2010
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” has filed 
with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.905(b)(3) 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)(C) 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 Braintree Electric Light Department 
(“BELD”), 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(1) 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. 
  
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).
2 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(3).
3 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
4 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
5 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-847
2
II. DISCUSSION
3. Section 623(1)(1))(C) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is 
subject to effective competition if a multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) operated by 
the franchising authority for that area offers video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in 
the franchise area.6 This test is otherwise referred to as the “municipal provider” test.
4. The first prong of the municipal provider test requires that the franchise area be served by 
an MVPD that is operated by the franchising authority for that area.  An MVPD is “a person such as, but 
not limited to, a cable operator . . . who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, 
multiple channels of video programming.”7 It is undisputed that the Competitor in this case is a public 
power system that operates as an MVPD offering various cable television packages and services.8  
5. To satisfy the second prong of the test, the Petitioner must show that the Competitor 
offers service to more than 50% of the households in the franchise area.  The Commission’s rules state 
that, for purposes of determining effective competition, an MVPD’s service will be deemed “offered” 
under the following circumstances: (1) when the MVPD is physically able to deliver service to potential 
subscribers, with the addition of no or only minimal additional investment by the distributor, in order for 
an individual subscriber to receive service; and (2) when no regulatory, technical or other impediments to 
households taking service exist, and potential subscribers in the franchise area are reasonably aware that 
they may purchase the services of the MVPD.9 The Petitioner has demonstrated that the Competitor is 
physically able to deliver service to potential subscribers.10 The Petitioner also has shown that there are 
no regulatory, technical or other impediments to prevent households from subscribing to the Competitor’s 
  
6 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(C). 
7 47 U.S.C. § 522(13); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(d).
8 Petition at 3.  See also Braintree Electric Light Department website, http://www.beld.com/Cable/Default.asp. 
(portions attached as Exhibit 2); BELD’s Cable Television License (portion attached as Exhibit 3); and, Letter to 
Steven J. Horvitz, Cole, Raywid & Braverman, L.L.P. from William G. Bottiggi, General Manager, BELD 
(November 7, 2006), confirming that BELD is an MVPD operated by the franchising authority for the franchise 
area.  (Attached as Exhibit 1).         
9 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(e).  
10 Petition at 4 and Exhibit 1 (November 7, 2006 Letter from BELD’s General Manager confirming that BELD 
offers video programming to more than 50 percent of the households in the franchise area).  The Petitioner also 
asserts that BELD has had substantial success in serving the franchise area because the Cable Division of the 
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy reports that BELD had 5,111 local cable subscribers 
as of July 25, 2006.  Id. at Exhibit 4.   According to the Petitioner, when compared to U.S. Census household figures 
for Braintree, MA, this number indicates a BELD subscriber rate of approximately 40 percent within the franchise 
area.  Id. and Exhibit 5.        
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-847
3
service.11 Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated that potential subscribers are reasonably aware of the 
availability of the Competitor’s cable television service in the franchise area.12  
6. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that its cable system serving the Communities has met the municipal provider test and is 
subject to effective competition.  
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective 
competition in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC IS GRANTED.
8. 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.
9. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.13  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau 
  
11 Petition at 4.  The Petitioner states that BELD’s Cable Television License specifically authorizes BELD to 
“[c]onstruct, upgrade, install, operate and maintain a Cable Television System within the corporate limits of the 
Town of Braintree.”  Exhibit 3 at 8.   The Petitioner states that its Braintree, MA franchise area is also defined as 
“the corporate limits of the Town of Braintree.”  Petition at n.16 and Exhibit 6 (Cable Television Renewal License 
Issued to A-R Cable Investments, Inc. - Jan. 25, 1999).    
12 Petition at 5.  The Petitioner notes that the Commission previously has looked to an MVPD’s existing service to 
residents of a community as evidence that residents are reasonably aware of the availability of that MVPD’s services 
in the franchise areas.  See, e.g., ACC Cable Communications FL-VA, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 7110, ¶ 7(2003) (“It is also 
well settled that because subscribers in the community have signed up for an MVPD’s service, it must be assumed 
that other residents throughout the area are reasonably aware of that MVPD’s service offerings.”).  Petition at n.17.  
13 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-847
4
ATTACHMENT A
CSR 7120-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Communities CUIDs
Braintree MA0217