Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 
Petitions for Determination of Effective 
Competition in the Delmarva, Delaware 
Franchise Area 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 8135-E
CSR 8136-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  February 7, 2011 Released:  February 10, 2011
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 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 “Communities.”1 Petitioner alleges that its cable systems 
serving the Communities are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”)2 and the Commission’s 
implementing rules,3 and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Communities because of 
the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, DirecTV, Inc. 
(“DirecTV”) and Dish Network (“Dish”).  The petitions are opposed by the Delaware Public Service 
Commission (“DE PSC”).
2. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be 
subject to effective competition,4 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and 
Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.5 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.6 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 Attachment A.  
  
1 Comcast states that pursuant to its franchise issued by the Delaware Public Service Commission, the Delmarva 
franchise (the “Franchise Area”) area is defined as “the unincorporated areas below the Chesapeake and Delaware 
Canal in New Castle County, all of the unincorporated areas of Kent County and all of the unincorporated areas of 
Sussex County except the unincorporated areas served by [Comcast’s] Ocean City head-end . . . .” Petition at 1, 
Exhibit 1 (Cable Television Franchise Renewal, PSC Order No. 6773 (dated Nov. 22, 2005)).   
2 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(1).
3 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
4 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
5 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
6 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
2
II. DISCUSSION
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 (“MVPD”), 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.7 This test is otherwise 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.8   
5. Turning to the first prong of this test, it is disputed by the DE PSC that these 
Communities are “served by” both DBS providers, DIRECTV and Dish.  In its Petitions, Comcast asserts 
that DIRECTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation offer comparable programming to over 50 
percent of the households in the Franchise Area.9 The DE PSC questions whether EchoStar 
Communications Corporation can be considered a valid MVPD for purposes of an effective competition 
determination.10 The DE PSC asserts that on January 1, 2008, the Dish Network Corp., concededly an 
MVPD providing DBS services, spun off its technology and infrastructure assets into “EchoStar 
Corporation,” a separate, publicly-traded company.11 The DE PSC states that it is unaware of any DBS 
provider named EchoStar Communications Corporation.12
6. Comcast responds that the DE PSC’s argument is hyper-technical and that it is widely 
known that EchoStar, prior to its separation from Dish, was a recognized MVPD of DBS service.13  
Comcast contends that while it admittedly did not identify the technical separation of Dish from EchoStar, 
it was referencing the appropriate MVPD service.14 Comcast notes that in its Petitions it included Dish’s 
channel line-up and DBS subscriber data of all subscribers of direct-to-home satellite services in the 
franchise area, including Dish.15  
7. The DBS data provided by Comcast supports its Petitions and its inadvertent reference to 
EchoStar rather than Dish has no significant effect on its effective competition analysis.  Indeed, the DE 
PSC concedes that Dish is itself an MVPD even if EchoStar Communications Corporation does not 
qualify as such.16 We therefore reject the DE PSC’s claims in this regard. 
8. A franchise area is considered “served by” an MVPD if that MVPD’s service is both 
  
7 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
8 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i).
9 Petitions at 3.
10 Comments of DE PSC at 3.  DE PSC does not challenge that the MVPD providers are unaffiliated with Petitioner 
or each other. 
11 Comments of DE PSC at 3.
12 Id.
13 Comcast Reply at 2.
14 Id.
15 Id. and Petition, Exhibit 3 (Dish Network Channel Line-Up) and Petition, Exhibit 6 (SBCA Effective Competition 
Tracking Report). 
16 See Comments of DE PSC at 3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
3
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.17 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.18
9. Despite the Commission’s findings in this regard, the DE PSC still asserts that Comcast 
has failed to show that potential subscribers are reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service 
because it did not provide evidence of DBS advertising in the Franchise Area.19 We agree with Comcast 
that such advertising evidence is not necessary in this case.20 It is well settled that, given the 
Commission’s expertise regarding MVPD competition and its resolution of numerous effective 
competition cases, it is appropriate for the Commission to take notice of the fact that Americans today are 
more than reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service.21 The Commission has reasonably 
determined that potential subscribers are aware of the availability of DBS service when DBS penetration 
exceeds 15 percent and this has been determined in this case as discussed below.  Additionally, the DE 
PSC has not supplied any evidence to demonstrate that residents are unaware of the availability of DBS 
service due to some unique circumstance.22 We find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of 
DBS service in the Communities to support its assertion that potential customers in the Communities are 
reasonably aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.23 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 programming24 and is supported in 
the petitions with copies of channel lineups for both DIRECTV and Dish.25 Further, we find  that both 
DIRECTV and Dish offer service to at least “50 percent” of the households in the Communities because 
of their national satellite footprint.26 Accordingly, we find that the first prong of the competing provider 
test is satisfied.  
10. 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 Communities.27 Petitioner sought to determine 
  
17 See Petitions at 3. 
18 Mediacom Illinois LLC et al., Eleven Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Twenty-Two Local 
Franchise Areas in Illinois and Michigan, 21 FCC Rcd 1175 (2006).
19 Comments of DE PSC at 4.
20 See Comcast Reply at 3.  
21 See Bright House Networks, LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 4390, 4391 at ¶ 6 (2007); Bright House Networks, LLC -- Two 
Local Franchise Areas in Florida, 22 FCC Rcd 4157, 4158 at ¶ 4 (2007).   
22 See Bright House Networks, 22 FCC Rcd 4390, 4392 at ¶ 6 (2007) (“Also convincing in this case is the complete 
absence of any evidence offered by Lake Alfred or Dundee that conditions in either of their franchise areas are 
different or that, due to some local peculiarity, households in either area are not reasonably aware that they may 
purchase DBS services.”). 
23 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(e)(2).   
24 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g).  See also Petitions at 4-5. 
25 See Petitions at 5 and Exhibit 3.  
26 See Petitions at 3-5. 
27 Id. at 8.  With regard to both CSR 8135-E and CSR 8136-E, we note that the same unincorporated areas reflecting 
the same DBS penetration rates are listed in both petitions.  Two petitions were filed, however, because some of the 
unincorporated areas with different CUID numbers are on separate Comcast cable systems and required the filing of 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
4
the competing provider penetration in the Communities by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from 
the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (“SBCA”) that identified the number of 
subscribers attributable to the DBS providers within the Communities on a zip code plus four basis.28
11. The DE PSC argues that Comcast’s use of 2000 U.S. Census data is unreliable because 
the information is outdated.29 The DE PSC contends that Comcast’s comparison of nine year old census 
data with current DBS subscriber figures understates the number of households in the Franchise Area and 
skews the DBS penetration rate.30 As support for its argument that Comcast has underestimated the 
number of households in the Franchise Area, the DE PSC refers to the general population growth in 
Delaware.31  
12. The DE PSC further contends that the boundaries of Delaware’s municipalities have 
frequently shifted due to numerous annexations.32 According to the DE PSC, any household located in 
annexed territory moves out of the Franchise Area and into the municipality and after such annexations it 
is likely the number of households in the Franchise Area decreases.33 The DE PSC argues that by not 
accounting for these annexations there is a reasonable likelihood that Comcast’s penetration calculation is 
exaggerated because of the inclusion of DBS households in that calculation that are potentially located 
inside municipalities and not in the Franchise Area.34 The DE PSC also alleges that Comcast failed to 
exclude seasonal, occasional and recreational homes from its household figure.35 The DE PSC argues that 
the Franchise Area includes a great number of seasonal homes and this was not properly factored into 
Comcast’s efforts to calculate its DBS penetration rate.36
13. The Commission has stated that it would accept more recent household data if it is 
demonstrated to be reliable.37 In this case, however, the DE PSC does not provide any alternate 
household data to compare to Comcast’s 2000 Census data.   Instead, the DE PSC refers generally to the 
population growth within the State of Delaware as evidence that Comcast has underestimated the number 
of households in the Franchise Area.  While the DE PSC does claim that the fastest area of population 
growth in Delaware is in the Franchise Area at issue,38 it provides no specific explanation, calculations, or 
  
(...continued from previous page)
a separate petition with a separate filing fee.  CSR 8135-E includes Kent County (DE0034, DE0059, DE0070, 
DE0088 and DE0091) and New Castle County (DE0093) on PSID #000812.  CSR 8136-E includes Kent County 
(DE0074) and Sussex County (DE0060, DE0076, DE0089, DE0090 and DE0092) on PSID #002027.    
28 Petitions at 5-9.   A zip code plus four analysis allocates DBS subscribers to a franchise area using zip code plus 
four information that generally reflects franchise area boundaries in a more accurate fashion than standard five digit 
zip code information.
29 Comments of DE PSC at 5.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 6. 
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(c). 
36 Comments of DE PSC at 6.
37 See Bright House Networks, LLC, 20 FCC Rcd 16823, 16827 at ¶ 10 (2005), citing In the Matter of Adelphia 
Cable Communications, 20 FCC Rcd 4979, 4982 (2005); In the Matter of MCC Iowa LLC, 2005 WL 2513517 
(2005). 
38 Comments of DE PSC at 5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
5
analysis as to how this precisely impacts the number of households in the Franchise Area and how this 
alters Comcast’s DBS penetration figures.  We agree with Comcast that the DE PSC speculates, but does 
not demonstrate with any specificity, that Comcast’s household data should be higher based on 
Delaware’s population growth.39
14. The DE PSC’s allegation that statewide annexations may cause an inflated number of 
DBS subscribers in the Franchise Area is equally without merit.  Again, the DE PSC’s allegations lack 
specificity and do not identify any particular annexations that may affect the situation or explain how such 
annexations would impact Comcast’s DBS penetration calculation in this case.  Moreover, even if an 
annexation required households to be subtracted, it would also require DBS subscribers in those 
households to be subtracted.    
15. Similarly, with regard to the DE PSC’s allegation of the inclusion of seasonal, occasional 
or recreational homes in Comcast’s household figure, the DE PSC supplies only conjecture to support its 
belief that Comcast has failed to account for these homes and that this must mean that Comcast’s 
penetration rate therefore must include these homes.  As Comcast notes, although the DE PSC argues that 
approximately one-third of Sussex County’s population is classified as seasonal residents,40 it does not 
identify any evidence of seasonal homes associated with the Franchise Area at issue, which according to 
Comcast actually excludes incorporated communities and other portions of Sussex County.41 Comcast 
asserts that beach communities such as Bethany Beach, Ocean View, South Bethany, and other 
surrounding shore communities located in the southeastern portion of Sussex County, where seasonal 
homes would most likely be associated, are not part of the Franchise Area.42 Comcast states that the 
homes associated with these areas were omitted from Comcast’s DBS penetration analysis.43 On balance, 
we do not believe that the DE PSC has provided sufficient evidence on this issue to cast doubt upon 
Comcast’s DBS penetration calculation.   
16. The DE PSC has failed to refute the reliability of Comcast’s 2000 Census household data. 
While the DE PSC alleges that the population growth in Delaware, the inclusion of seasonal households, 
and annexations within the State affect the household figure in the Franchise Area, it fails to provide any 
substantive evidence, such as more recent reliable household data for the Franchise Area to support its 
claims.  In the absence of the submission of more reliable data, the Commission has upheld the reliance of 
cable operators on U.S. Census data in effective competition cases, even despite concerns that the data 
  
39 Comcast Reply at 5-6.  In its Reply Comments in this proceeding, Comcast does state that it has overstated the 
households in Sussex County in its petition by inadvertently including incorporated municipalities in its calculation 
(referencing the Petition, Exhibit 7).  Comcast states that instead of subtracting the households associated with the 
25 incorporated municipalities in Sussex County from the total household figure in the county, it only subtracted the 
unincorporated community of Long Neck.  As a result, the households for Sussex should be 46,851 (62,577 [total 
occupied housing units] – 15,726 [25 incorporated communities] = 46,851) and not 61,760 (62,577 [total occupied 
housing units] – 817 [Long Neck] = 61,760) as originally reported in the Petition.  Comcast reports that although 
this adjustment has the effect of decreasing the denominator of the DBS penetration calculation, the numerator 
remains the same because the DBS figure was properly reported in Exhibit 6 to the Petition.  Comcast asserts that 
the resulting DBS penetration rate in the Franchise Area should be 27.54%, instead of the 23.25% figure reported in 
Exhibit 8 to the Petition.  In its Reply, Comcast submits a revised Exhibit 7 as Exhibit B showing the recalculated 
household figure for Sussex County. Exhibit C in the Reply contains a revised Exhibit 8 to the Petition 
demonstrating that the DBS penetration rate for the Franchise Area should be 27.54%.  See Comcast Reply, n.18.             
40 See Comments of DE PSC at 6-7.
41 Comcast Reply at 6.
42 Id. at 6-7.
43 Id. at 7.  For a description of the Delmarva Franchise Area, see supra n.1.      
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
6
might be considered outdated.44 We therefore find that Comcast has met its burden in this regard.45 We 
also note that if the DE PSC did submit alternative data in this case, the data would have to be substantial 
in order to reduce Comcast’s 27.54 percent penetration figure to 15 percent.     
17. The DE PSC further challenges Comcast’s penetration methodology because of the 
inclusion of courtesy or complimentary DBS accounts.46 Comcast responds that it is of no significance 
whether DBS service is available on a free or paid basis.47 From its perspective, Comcast asserts that the 
offering of free DBS service presents more of a competitive challenge.48 As Comcast correctly notes, the 
Commission previously has rejected arguments that complimentary accounts must be excluded from the 
DBS penetration analysis.49 We also agree with Comcast that the DE PSC has provided no evidence in 
this case to suggest that there is anything more than a de minimis number of complimentary accounts in 
the Franchise Area.  We therefore find no merit in the DE PSC’s allegation.50  
18. Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using 
Census 2000 household data,51 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 Communities.  Therefore, the second prong of the 
competing provider test is satisfied for each of the Communities.
19. 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 Communities listed on Attachment A.  
  
44 See, e.g., Coxcom, Inc. d/b/a Cox Communications Northern Virginia, 23 FCC Rcd 12130, 12134 at ¶ 10 (2008); 
Bright House Networks, LLC, 20 FCC Rcd 16823, 16827 at ¶ 10 (2005); Mediacom Minnesota, 18 FCC Rcd 12768, 
12771 at ¶ 8 (2003).
45 The DE PSC also filed “Sur-Reply Comments” in this proceeding.  Such additional pleadings are not authorized 
pursuant to our rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.7(d).  Nonetheless, even despite the DE PSC’s failure to file a Motion to 
explain the extraordinary circumstances prompting the necessity for such filing, we will consider the pleading for 
purposes of having a complete record before us.   In its Sur-Reply Comments, the DE PSC argues that Comcast has 
failed to meet its burden under the competing provider test.  Specifically, the DE PSC argues that Comcast has failed 
to conform to 47 C.F.R. 76.905(c) because it only speculates that Bethany Beach and surrounding shore 
communities with which seasonal households would most likely be associated are not part of the Franchise Area.  
DE PSC Sur-Reply Comments at 2.  We disagree.  Comcast affirmatively states that the household data associated 
with the beach communities are omitted from Comcast’s DBS analysis.  Comcast Reply at 6-7.  By any definition, 
beach or shore communities are more likely to contain seasonal housing and Comcast states that these homes are not 
part of the Franchise Area.  The DE PSC has provided no data to contradict Comcast’s submissions.          
46 Comments of DE PSC at 7.
47 Comcast Reply at 7.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 8; see e.g., Adelphia Cable Communications, 20 FCC Rcd 20536, 20540 at ¶ 13 (2005) (“We do not believe 
the inclusion of complimentary accounts in the DBS subscriber report precludes a determination of effective 
competition.  In the first place, we presume that the number of comlimentary accounts is de minimis in number.  
Additionally, the fact that this de minimis number of DBS subscribers receives complimentary service enhances, 
rather than reduces, the cable operator’s need to compete for these subscibers.  A subscriber receiving free DBS 
service arguably would have to perceive significant choice in favor of cable service.”).        
50 We also agree with Comcast that the DE PSC errs when it asserts that the competing provider test requires that 
“only billed customers” be counted for purposes of counting the number of DBS subscribers.  See Comments of DE 
PSC at 7.  The Commission’s rules state that “each separately billed or billable customer” will count as a household 
subscribing to or being offered video programming services.  47 C.F.R. § 76.905(c).        
51 Petitions at 5-9 and Exhibit 8; see also Comcast Reply at n.18 and Exhibit C.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
7
III. ORDERING CLAUSES 
20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, ARE 
GRANTED. 
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certifications to regulate basic cable service rates 
granted to any of the Communities set forth on Attachment A ARE REVOKED. 
22. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.52
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
5247 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-237 
8
ATTACHMENT A
CSR 8135-E and CSR 8136-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS, LLC  
2000 Estimated 
 Census DBS
Communities CUID(s)  CPR* Households Subscribers
Kent County DE0034  ----- 27,068 12,455
(CSR 8135-E) DE0059
DE0070
DE0088
DE0091
(CSR 8136-E) DE0074
New Castle County DE0093           ----- 7,010** 0
(CSR 8135-E)
Sussex County DE0060 46,851*** 9,831****
(CSR 8136-E) DE0076
DE0089
DE0090
DE0092
Total 27.54% 80,929 22,286
 
*CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.