Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1683 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Time Warner Cable Inc. Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in 19 Texas Communities ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 8511-E CSR 8512-E CSR 8513-E CSR 8514-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 6, 2011 Released: October 11, 2011 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 petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), 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 the “Attachment A Communities.” Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Attachment A Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) 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 those Communities because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”), and DISH Network (“DISH”). Petitioner additionally claims to be exempt from cable rate regulation in the Communities listed on Attachment B and hereinafter referred to as Attachment B Communities, pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act3 and Section 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules,4 because the Petitioner serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area. The petitions are unopposed. 2. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition,5 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.6 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.7 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petitions based on our finding that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachments A and B. 1 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B). 2 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A). 4 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(1). 5 47 C.F.R. § 76.906. 6 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905. 7 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906-.907(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1683 2 II. DISCUSSION A. The Competing Provider Test 3. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if the franchise area is (a) served by at least two unaffiliated multi-channel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; and (b) the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.8 This test is referred to as the “competing provider” test. 4. The first prong of this test has three elements: the franchise area must be “served by” at least two unaffiliated MVPDs who offer “comparable programming” to at least “50 percent” of the households in the franchise area.9 It is undisputed that the Attachment A Communities are “served by” both DBS providers, DIRECTV and DISH, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated with Petitioner or with each other. A franchise area is considered “served by” an MVPD if that MVPD’s service is both technically and actually available in the franchise area. DBS service is presumed to be technically available due to its nationwide satellite footprint, and presumed to be actually available if households in the franchise area are made reasonably aware of the service's availability.10 The Commission has held that a party may use evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area (the second prong of the competing provider test discussed below) coupled with the ubiquity of DBS services to show that consumers are reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service.11 We further find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion that potential customers in those Communities are reasonably aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.12 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 programming,13 and is supported in this petitions with citations to the channel lineups for both DIRECTV and DISH.14 Also undisputed is Petitioner’s assertion that both DIRECTV and DISH offer service to at least “50 percent” of the households in the Attachment A Communities because of their national satellite footprint.15 Accordingly, we find that the first prong of the competing provider test is satisfied. 5. The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the number of households subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceed 15 percent of the households in a franchise area. Petitioner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in the Attachment A Communities.16 Petitioner sought to determine the competing provider penetration there by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association that identified the number of subscribers 8 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). 9 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i). 10 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 8511-E at 3-5. 11 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, ¶ 3 (2006). 12 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(e)(2). 13 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g); see also, e.g., Petition in CSR 8512-E at 6. 14 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 8513-E at 5 n.12; id. at 6. 15 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 8514-E at 7. 16 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 8511-E at 7; id., Declaration of Susan Patten, Time Warner Vice President of Government Relations for Central Texas, at ¶ 3 (Aug. 1, 2011). Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1683 3 attributable to the DBS providers within the Attachment A Communities on a zip code plus four basis.17 6. Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using Census 2010 household data,18 as reflected in Attachment A, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in the Attachment A Communities. Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied for each of the Attachment A Communities. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that both prongs of the competing provider test are satisfied and Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Attachment A Communities. B. The Low Penetration Test 7. Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if the Petitioner serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area. This test is referred to as the “low penetration” test.19 Petitioner alleges that it is subject to effective competition under the low penetration effective competition test because it serves less that 30 percent of the households in the Attachment B Communities. 8. Based upon the subscriber penetration level calculated by Petitioner, as reflected in Attachment B, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated the percentage of households subscribing to its cable service is less than 30 percent of the households in the Attachment B Communities. Therefore, the low penetration test is satisfied as to the Attachment B Communities. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for a determination of effective competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Time Warner Cable Inc. ARE GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates granted to or on behalf of any of the Communities set forth on Attachments A and B IS REVOKED. 11. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the Commission’s rules.20 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven A. Broeckaert Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau 17 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 8512-E at 8. 18 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 8513-E at Exh. B. 19 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A). 20 47 C.F.R. § 0.283. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1683 4 ATTACHMENT A CSRs 8511-E, 8513-E, 8514-E COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Communities CUIDs CPR* 2010 Census Households Estimated DBS Subscribers CSR 8511-E City of Burnett TX2446 35.67 2,041 728 City of Lakeway TX0323 22.21 4,629 1,028 City of Marble Falls TX2444 32.66 2,486 812 City of Pflugerville TX2484 26.31 15,789 4,154 Village of Point Venture TX2298 36.90 355 131 Village of San Leanna TX1180 23.41 205 48 City of Sunset Valley TX0781 18.09 304 55 Village of Volente TX0779 29.75 242 72 CSR 8513-E Fort Hood TX0764 TX0765 26.84 6,282 1,686 City of Robinson TX0286 23.14 3,764 871 CSR 8514-E City of Woodcreek TX2314 26.97 712 192 *CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1683 5 ATTACHMENT B CSR 8511-E, 8512-E, 8513-E, 8514-E COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Communities CUIDs Franchise Area Households Cable Subscribers Penetration Percentage CSR 8511-E City of Niederwald TX2482 193 23 11.92 Hays County (unincorporated) TX1298 TX1342 TX2160 TX2154 23,484 5,802 24.71 CSR 8512-E Gillespie County (unincorporated) TX2157 5,868 725 12.36 CSR 8513-E McLennan County (unincorporated) TX0408 18,974 3,177 16.74 Bell County (unincorporated) TX0476 TX1012 5,668 1,360 23.99 Coryell County (unincorporated) TX2509 5,487 42 .77 CSR 8514-E Caldwell County (unincorporated) TX2075 12,301 818 6.65 Guadalupe County (unincorporated) TX2324 15,689 557 3.55