Federal Communications Commission DA 11-616 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Time Warner Cable Inc.
Petition for Subscribership Information Pursuant 
to Section 76.907(c) of the Commission’s Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7568-R
ORDER
Adopted:  April 5, 2011 Released:  April 6, 2011
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Time Warner Cable Inc. (“Time Warner” or “the Company”), intends to file a petition 
seeking a finding that it is subject to “competing provider” effective competition in and around San 
Antonio, Texas.1 The Company’s petition will need to show the Commission that, in each of the areas in 
question, more than 15 percent of the households subscribe to video services offered by competing 
multichannel video program distributors (“MVPDs”).2 To sustain this burden of proof, Time Warner 
needs numbers of subscribers from three companies:  the direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers 
DIRECTV, Inc., and DISH Network, and the local exchange carrier AT&T Texas (“AT&T”), which 
provide service in the areas in question.  Time Warner needs AT&T numbers for seven areas in which the 
DBS providers’ subscribers do not reach the threshold of more than 15 percent of households.3
2. AT&T refuses to produce its subscriber numbers,4 for essentially two reasons.  First, it 
cites the confidential nature of its customer numbers in the competitive MVPD marketplace.5 Second, it 
alleges that Time Warner does not need AT&T’s subscriber numbers because the Company could show 
that it is subject to another form of effective competition, so-called “local exchange carrier” or LEC 
effective competition, without any confidential numbers from AT&T.6  
3. Time Warner filed the present petition, requesting that we order AT&T to disclose its 
subscriber numbers in the areas in question.  Time Warner invokes Section 76.907(c) of our rules, which 
provides:
“If the evidence establishing effective competition is not otherwise available, cable 
operators may request from a competitor information regarding the competitor's reach 
  
1 Time Warner “Petition for Special Relief” in CSR 7568-R at 2.
2 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
3 Petition at 2 & n.6.
4 Petition, Exhs. B & D (letters from counsel for AT&T to counsel for Time Warner).  The DBS providers make 
their community-specific subscriber numbers available through the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications 
Association.
5 “Opposition of AT&T” at 1, 3, 7.
6 Id. at 5-7; see also 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-616 
2
and number of subscribers.  A competitor must respond to such request within 15 days. 
Such responses may be limited to numerical totals.”7
4. AT&T’s refusal lacks merit.  There is no reason to doubt that Time Warner needs 
AT&T’s subscriber numbers to prove that it is subject to competing provider effective competition.  
Although those numbers may be confidential to AT&T, there are customary methods for such information 
to be used in Commission proceedings with adequate protection from disclosure to competitors and the 
general public.  Such methods are familiar to AT&T8 and have been used in effective competition 
proceedings.9 We are confident that AT&T and Time Warner can arrange to provide the Commission 
with the numbers of subscribers to competing MVPDs without compromising AT&T’s legitimate interest 
in the confidentiality of its own subscriber numbers.10
5. That Time Warner might be able to show a form of effective competition that does not 
require AT&T’s subscriber numbers as evidence is immaterial.11 Time Warner is entitled to choose 
which form(s) of effective competition to claim and not to claim, and to present a case for competing 
provider effective competition without first proving that it cannot show other forms of effective 
competition.  The Company’s request for AT&T’s subscriber numbers in the San Antonio communities in 
question is entirely within its rights under Section 76.907(c) of our rules.12
II. ORDERING CLAUSES
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition IS GRANTED and that AT&T shall, 
within fifteen (15) days of the release of this Order, comply with its obligations under Section 76.907(c) 
of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.907(c). 
7. 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
  
7 47 C.F.R. § 76.907(c).
8 See, e.g., Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless & AT&T, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd 10985, 10992-94, ¶¶ 15-17 
(2010); Craig O. McCaw, 9 FCC Rcd 5836, 5922-25, ¶¶ 159-68 (1996), aff’d, SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 56 
F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
9 CoxCom, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd 4384, ¶ 2 n.6 (2007).
10 See Time Warner “Reply” at 4 & n.12.
11 AT&T’s certainty that Time Warner could show LEC effective competition is unfounded in the absence of an 
actual filing to that effect by Time Warner and an opportunity to challenge such a filing, in all its elements, by 
interested persons.  It is also possible that such a filing would require confidential information from AT&T.
12 To the extent that AT&T challenges the validity of 47 C.F.R. § 76.907(c), the appropriate place for such a 
challenge is a petition for rulemaking.
13 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.