Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Time Warner Cable Inc. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Communities in Ohio ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR 7707-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 24, 2011 Released: May 31, 2011 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. Time Warner Cable Inc. (“Time Warner” or the “Company”) has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1-2), and 76.907 of the Commission’s rules for a determination that the Company is subject to effective competition in franchise areas (the “Communities”) in Ohio. Time Warner alleges that its cable system serving the communities listed on the Attachments hereto is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(A & B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”)1 and the Commission’s implementing rules.2 Time Warner claims exemption from regulation of the rates for its basic cable service in the Communities listed in Attachment A hereto (“the Attachment A Communities”) because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, DIRECTV, Inc., and DISH Network. Time Warner additionally claims to be exempt from cable rate regulation in the Communities listed on Attachment B (“the Attachment B Communities”) because the Company serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in those Communities. Oppositions to the petition were filed on behalf of three Attachment A Communities, the City of Montgomery, Ohio (”Montgomery”), and the Community Programming Board (the “Board”), which regulates cable service in the City of Forest Park and Springfield Township (among other places not involved in these proceedings).3 Time Warner filed replies.4 2. After the close of the pleading cycle herein, Time Warner requested that it be permitted to withdraw several Communities from this proceeding.5 We grant Time Warner’s request. The withdrawn Communities are listed in Attachment C hereto. One of those Communities is Montgomery. 1 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(A-B). 2 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(1-2). 3 Opposition Comments of the City of Montgomery, Ohio (“Montgomery Opposition”); Opposition Comments of the Community Programming Board of the City of Forest Park, Ohio, and Springfield Township, Ohio (“Board Opposition”). The City and the Board moved for an 8 day extension of the deadline for filing their Oppositions, to which Time Warner consented. Although extensions of time are not routinely granted, 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a), we find good cause for a brief extension here, namely that it enabled the City and the Board to make a more detailed contribution to these proceedings than they could have otherwise. Accordingly, we grant their motion. 4 Time Warner filed two pleadings, each titled simply “Reply,” one addressed to the Montgomery Opposition (“Reply to Montgomery”) and the other addressed to the Board Opposition (“Reply to Board”). 5 Letter from Craig A. Gilley, Esq., Fleischman & Harding LLP, counsel for Time Warner, to Mr. Steve Broeckaert, Commission Media Bureau, dated Nov. 17, 2008; Letter from Mr. Gilley to Mr. Broeckaert, dated Jan. 26, 2010. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 2 Accordingly, we do not address the substantive issues raised in the Montgomery Opposition and the Reply to Montgomery.6 3. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition,7 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.8 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.9 For the reasons set forth below, based on our findings that Time Warner is subject to effective competition in the Attachment A and B Communities, we grant the petition for the Communities listed on those Attachments. We make no findings concerning the Attachment C Communities because Time Warner has withdrawn them. II. DISCUSSION A. The Competing Provider Test 4. 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.10 This test is referred to as the “competing provider” test. 1. The First Part 5. The first part of this test has three parts: 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.11 It is undisputed that the Attachment A Communities are “served by” both DBS providers, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated with Time Warner 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.12 The Commission has held that a party may use evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area (the second part of the competing provider test discussed below) coupled with the ubiquity of DBS services to show that consumers are reasonably aware 6 In later communications with Commission staff, Time Warner clarified the Petition by withdrawing from consideration several communities about which partial information was stated in the Petition. The communities are Colerain Township, Hamersville Village, Jefferson Township (OH2450), Newtown Village, Seven Mile Village, and Woodlawn Village. E-mail from John W. Berresford, Esq., Commission counsel, to Mr. Gilley, March 30, 2011, 3:21 PM; E-Mail from Mr. Gilley to Mr. Berresford, April 1, 2011, 3:-09 PM. Subsequent communications resolved questions about the Community Unit Identification numbers of certain Communities. E-Mail from Mr. Gilley to Mr. Berresford, May 17, 2011, 1:48 PM; E-Mail from Mr. Berresford to Mr. Gilley, May 17, 2011, 2:34 PM; E-mail from Mr. Gilley to Mr. Berresford, May 17, 2011, 3:07 PM. None of these communications concerned a Community for which an Opposition to the Petition was filed. 7 47 C.F.R. § 76.906. 8 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905. 9 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907. 10 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). 11 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i). 12 See Petition at 3-5. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 3 of the availability of DBS service.13 We further find that Time Warner has provided sufficient citations to the DBS providers’ web pages and evidence of their large and growing nationwide subscriber numbers to show that potential customers in the Attachment A Communities are reasonably aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.14 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 programming15 and is supported in the petition with citations to web pages showing the channel lineups for both DBS providers.16 Also undisputed is Time Warner’s assertion that both DBS providers offer service to at least “50 percent” of the households in the Attachment A Communities because of their national satellite footprint.17 The City and the Board do not dispute that Time Warner has established all the elements of the first part of the competing provider test.18 Accordingly, we find that the first part of the competing provider test is satisfied. 2. The Second Part 6. The second part 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 some of the Attachment A Communities and that, in others, both it and the DBS providers have subscribership exceeding 15 percent.19 Petitioner correctly asserts that, assuming the validity of these subscribership numbers, it is subject to effective competition in the latter Communities. If Petitioner is the largest MVPD there, then the DBS providers’ subscribership exceeds 15 percent. On the other hand, if one of the DBS providers is the largest MVPD, then the combined subscribership of Petitioner and the other DBS provider exceeds 15 percent. Either way, the subscribership of the MVPDs other than the largest one exceeds 15 percent.20 7. The second part of the competing provider test requires the petitioning cable operator to calculate a ratio for each community, the numerator of which is the number of subscribers to MVPDs other than the largest one21 and the denominator of which is the number of households there. Only if the ratio exceeds 15 percent has the cable operator satisfied the competing provider test. 8. For each Attachment A Community, Time Warner estimated the numerator of the statutory ratio by, first, obtaining a list from the Media Business Corp (“MBC”) of all the five-digit zip codes all or part of which lie in the Attachment A Community.22 MBC also obtained for Time Warner (from the U.S. Postal Service) the number of households in each such zip code.23 In the typical 13 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, ¶ 3 (2006). 14 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(e)(2). 15 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). See also Petition at 5. 16 See Petition at 4 n.12, 6-7. 17 See id. at 2-3. 18 City Opposition at 2; Board Opposition at 3. 19 Petition at 7-8. 20 See Charter Commun., 21 FCC Rcd 1208, 1210, ¶ 5 (2006). 21 In the interests of simplicity, our discussion will assume that the MVPDs other than the largest one in each Community are the DBS providers, although in some cases those may be one DBS provider and Petitioner. In the three Communities whose franchise authorities oppose the petition, there is no doubt that the MVPDs other than the largest one are the DBS providers. See Petition at 7. 22 Petition at 8 n.25. 23 Id. at 8, n.25 & Exh. E, col. B. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 4 Attachment A Community, part of each zip code was inside the Community and part was outside of it. To account for this fact, Time Warner needed to allocate the DBS subscribers in the zip codes between those who were in the Community and those who were outside it. To this end, Time Warner added all the households in the zip codes and divided their sum by the number of households in the Community24 (which it obtained from the U.S. Census25). The resulting quotient was Time Warner’s allocation percentage for the Community. Next, from the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (“SBCA”), Time Warner obtained the number of subscribers to DBS service in each zip code.26 Time Warner then multiplied that number by its allocation percentage and the resulting product was Time Warner’s estimate of the number of DBS subscribers in the Attachment A Community. 9. The Board objects to how Time Warner reached its allocation percentage. The Board finds a flaw in Time Warner adding all the households in all the zip codes any part of which is in the Community – specifically, treating all zip codes alike regardless of their size and how much or little of each is in the Community in question. The Board argues that if a small part of a very populous zip code were in a Community, and if DBS subscribership were atypically high there, then Time Warner’s allocation formula would over-estimate DBS subscribership there.27 The Board’s argument is theoretically valid, but it has not shown that it actually applies to Forest Park or Springfield. The Board points to one zip code (45246), small parts of which are in Forest Park and Springfield and contain few or no residences.28 Even if that zip code (and all its DBS subscribers) were excluded from Time Warner’s calculations, however, Forest Park and Springfield would still have DBS subscribership in excess of 15 percent, satisfying the second part of the competing provider test.29 10. The Board argues that we should require Time Warner to use another allocation formula, which includes in the statutory numerator all DBS subscribers in zip codes whose geographic centers are inside the franchise area in question;30 or that we should require the Company to use relatively precise “Zip+4” nine-digit zip codes, which avoid the need for an allocation percentage.31 We decline to do so, as we have several times declined to require nine-digit-based data.32 No good purpose would be served by prohibiting a cable operator from using one allocation formula and requiring another method in the absence of any indication that that would alter the outcome in the proceeding at hand. 24 Id. at Exh. B & Exh. E, col. C. 25 Id. at 8 n.25 & Exh. C. 26 Id. at 8 n.25 & Exh. D. 27 Board Opposition at 4-6. 28 Id. at 5-6. 29 Time Warner’s calculations show DBS subscribership in Springfield at 18.47% (2583.83/13988 = 18.47%), but only 8.8% of the associated zip codes’ DBS subscribers living in zip code 45246. If all DBS subscribers in zip code 45246 were excluded from the numerator (reducing it by 8.8%), the statutory ratio would be 2382.29/13988, or 17.03%. In Forest Park, the same kind of calculations (omitting zip code 45246’s 1411 DBS subscribers and counting only zip code 45240’s 2891 DBS subscribers, applying the 43% allocation to the later number, producing only 1243.13 DBS subscribers in Forest Park) lower DBS subscribership from 24.41% to 16.56% (1832.17/7505 = 24.41%; 1243.13/7505 = 16.56%). Both “corrected” estimates are above the statutory minimum. See generally Petition at Exhs. D & E. 30 The Board invokes Falcon Cable Systems Co. II, 17 FCC Rcd 4648, 4650-51, ¶ 7 (2002). 31 Board Opposition at 6-7. 32 Time Warner Cable Inc., 25 FCC Rcd 5457, 5462, ¶ 16 (2010) (“Time Warner”); Subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corp., 23 FCC Rcd 14141, 14151, ¶ 34 (2008) (“Subsidiaries of Cablevision”); CoxCom, Inc, 22 FCC Rcd 4041, 4049 ¶ 26 (2007). Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 5 11. The Board also objects that five-digit zip codes can contain areas of greatly varying population densities and economic attractiveness to cable operators, that DBS will have more subscribers in areas where there is no cable service, and that we should require Time Warner to explain how these factors, to the extent that they exist at all in Forest Part or Springfield, do not over-estimate DBS subscribership there. Again, we decline to do so.33 The Board’s objections are vague34 and, despite its indubitable familiarity with the territory in question, it has failed to produce any specific evidence that topographic or similar factors render Time Warner’s numbers inaccurate in actual fact. We have repeatedly refused to deny cable operators’ otherwise valid showings of effective competition based on such unsubstantiated objections by franchise authorities,35 and we do so again here. 12. Time Warner’s numbers of households in each of the Attachment A Communities – the denominator of its statutory ratios – were taken from the 2000 U.S. Census.36 The numerator and denominator yielded Time Warner’s asserted DBS subscribership in each Attachment A Community, which in each case exceeded 15 percent. If these numbers are accepted by us, then Time Warner has satisfied the competing provider test for the Attachment A Communities. 13. The Board objects that the 2000 Census is a stale source of household numbers for Forest Park and Springfield and proffers instead more recent, higher estimates from local government authorities.37 We reject this objection and the Board’s estimates. We have long accepted housing numbers from the U.S. Census despite their being years old.38 We have stated that we will accept more recent household numbers that are as reliable as Census data,39 but the Board’s proffered numbers are flawed. They estimate the number of “housing units” in Forest Park and Springfield,40 although Section 623(1)(1)(B) calls for “households,”41 which are only occupied housing units.42 The Board’s numbers are also based in part on recently granted construction permits.43 These may not have ripened into completed, occupied housing units and, therefore, are not a reliable measure of households.44 In addition, if we used 33 Board Opposition at 7-9. 34 Id. at 8 (“the five digit zip codes all sit within diverse terrains, including, populated housing areas and vast open areas with no roads”); see also Reply to Board at 5. 35 See, e.g., Charter Commun., 25 FCC Rcd 2289, 2292, ¶ 6 (2010); Cablevision Systems East Hampton Corp., 24 FCC Rcd 10846, 10847, ¶ 6 (2009); Cablevision Systems Westchester Corp., 24 FCC Rcd 872, 876, ¶ 15 (2009); Comcast Cable Commun., LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 694, 697-98, ¶ 9 (2007); Adelphia Cable Commun., 20 FCC Rcd 20536, 20538, ¶¶ 5-7 (2005), application for review pending; Adelphia Cable Commun., 20 FCC Rcd 4979, 4980- 81, ¶ 4 (2005); Cablevision of Paterson, 17 FCC Rcd 17239, 17242, ¶ 6, n.22 (2002). 36 Id. at 8 n.25 & Exh. C. 37 Board Opposition at 9-10 & attached Affidavits of Christopher Gilbert, Assistant Township Administrator of Springfield (“Gilbert Affidavit”), and Chris Anderson, Community Development Director of Forest Park (“Anderson Affidavit”). 38 See, e.g., Subsidiaries of Cablevision, 23 FCC Rcd at 14144-45, ¶¶ 9-14 & cases cited therein. 39 See, e.g., Time Warner, 25 FCC Rcd at 5463, ¶ 21 & cases cited therein. 40 Gilbert Affidavit at ¶¶ 3-4; Anderson Affidavit at ¶¶ 3-4. 41 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B)(ii). 42 See, e.g., Marcus Cable Assocs, 25 FCC Rcd 4369, 4370, ¶ 4, n.9 (2010) (“For effective competition purposes, the Commission utilizes the United States Census Bureau's definition of ‘households’ which is ‘occupied housing units.’ Under this definition, ‘households’ is a subset of ‘housing units,’ the latter being comprised of both occupied and unoccupied year round residences”). 43 Gilbert Affidavit at ¶ 5; Anderson Affidavit at ¶ 4. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 6 the higher numbers proposed by the Board, DBS subscription would still be above the statutory minimum in both Forest Park45 and Springfield.46 This would be so even if we used the lower numerators discussed in paragraph 10 above.47 14. Finally, the Board objects generally that Commission decisions about effective competition lack adequate “mathematical or tautological analysis” and suggests that we require petitioning cable operators to survey each household in each franchise area or otherwise increase the “specificity or statistical accuracy” of cable operator’s evidence.48 We reject the Board’s suggestions. Our standards for showing DBS subscribership in a franchise area are reasonable and afford parties such as the Board full opportunity TO attack cable operators’ evidence and to submit their own. No evidence or argument that the Board has produced in this proceeding has shed any significant doubt on our conclusion that DBS subscribership in Forest Park or Springfield exceeds the statutory minimum to satisfy the second part of the competing provider test. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Time Warner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that both parts of the competing provider test are satisfied and Time Warner is subject to effective competition in the Attachment A Communities. B. The Low Penetration Test 15. Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if it serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area. This test is referred to as the “low penetration” test.49 Time Warner alleges that it is subject to effective competition under the low penetration effective competition test in the Attachment B Communities because it serves less that 30 percent of the households in them. Based upon the subscriber penetration level calculated by Time Warner, as reflected in Attachment B, we find that Time Warner has demonstrated that 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 also satisfied as to the Attachment B Communities. (...continued from previous page) 44 Adelphia Cable Commun., 22 FCC Rcd 4458, 4462-63, ¶ 14 (2007) (“The estimates based on occupancy permits do not approximate the 2000 Census data because permits do not guarantee that households are actually occupied. We will rely on the Census 2000 data.”) (footnote omitted); CoxCom, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd 4453, 4538, ¶ 13 (2007) (“Because our competing provider effective competition test measures households, we reject estimates based on building permits, certificates of occupancy and the like because they may reflect housing units that are unoccupied.”); Marcus Cable Assocs, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 9649, 9652 ¶ 7 (2003) (“With respect to residences recently granted certificates of occupancy, we do not believe that local inspections and permits indicating that a building is ready for occupancy demonstrate[] that the building is in fact occupied full time such that it would qualify as a household under the Census definition”). 45 1,832.17/7,798 = 23.49%, see Petition at Exh. 3; Board Opposition, Anderson Affidavit at ¶ 3. 46 2,583.83/15,003 = 17.22%, see Petition at Exh. 3; Board Opposition, Gilbert Affidavit at ¶ 3. 47 For Forest Park, 2,382.29/7,798 = 15.94%; for Springfield, 2,382.29/15,003 = 15.88%. 48 Board Opposition at 10-11. 49 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A). Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 7 III. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. 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 as to the Communities listed in Attachments A and B hereto. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates granted to or on behalf of the Communities set forth on Attachments A and B IS REVOKED. 18. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the Commission’s rules.50 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven A. Broeckaert Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau 50 47 C.F.R. § 0.283. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 8 ATTACHMENT A CSR 7707-E COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Communities CUIDs CPR* 2000 Census Households Estimated DBS Subscribers Adams Township OH2233 33.62 692 232.64 Amberley Village OH0725 15.17 1338 202.94 Anderson Township OH0764 17.44 15629 2726.31 Blue Ash City OH0708 15.32 4990 764.44 Carlisle Village OH0837 18.16 1849 335.7 Cheviot City OH0738 16.86 4064 684.99 Columbia Township OH0705 15.62 2655 414.69 Crosby Township OH1050 31.61 1025 323.96 Elmwood Place Village OH0709 16.89 9224 179.18 Evendale Village OH0790 16.02 1062 170.17 Fairfield City (Butler County) OH0250 22.32 16960 3785.35 Forest Park City OH0713 24.41 7505 1832.17 Franklin City OH0252 18.16 4553 826.64 Franklin Township OH2447 49.74 426 211.9 Glendale Village OH0732 21.44 942 201.97 Golf Manor Village OH0645 17.31 1751 303.12 Goshen Township OH1104 19.94 4849 966.67 Green (Hamilton County) OH0766 20.76 21318 4426.31 Hamer Township OH2454 35.35 241 85.19 Hamilton City OH0251 23.12 24188 5591.95 Hanover Township OH0835 19.42 2809 545.43 City of Indian Hill OH0718 16.47 2066 340.31 Jackson Township OH1347 28.61 900 257.48 Lebanon City OH0865 18.19 5887 1071.01 Loveland City OH0727 OH0728 OH0729 19.78 4497 889.59 Madeira City OH0704 15.56 3383 526.40 Madison Township OH0530 24.56 3141 771.44 Marshall Township OH2456 35.17 401 141.04 Martinsville Village OH1495 42.58 160 68.13 Miami Township OH0795 18.48 12894 2383.36 Middletown City OH0249 OH2720 18.70 21469 4013.72 Milford City OH0796 OH0797 16.55 13282 487.36 Mount Healthy City OH0703 19.99 3222 644.03 New Market Township OH2457 35.17 694 244.10 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 9 Communities CUIDs CPR* 2000 Census Households Estimated DBS Subscribers New Miami Village OH0531 23.80 877 208.74 New Vienna Village OH1313 42.88 497 213.09 Newtonsville Village OH1315 25.84 175 45.23 North College Hill OH0792 18.12 4191 759.51 Penn Township OH2458 36.94 381 140.76 Pierce Township OH2765 23.25 4656 1082.66 Reading City OH0743 15.05 4885 735.24 Sharonville City OH0711 OH2722 17.38 6211 1079.39 Silverton City OH0716 15.22 2534 385.74 Springfield Township OH0793 18.47 13988 2583.83 St. Bernard City OH0724 15.45 2069 319.74 St. Clair Township OH0633 23.71 2677 634.75 Stonelick Township OH1153 21.46 2135 458.14 Symmes Township OH0715 17.81 5197 925.40 Union Township (Clermont County) OH0799 21.29 16906 3599.85 Union Township (Highland County) OH2459 28.96 586 169.70 Wayne Township OH0836 25.82 1729 446.37 West Chester Township OH0798 19.38 19588 3796.57 *CPR = Percent DBS penetration rate. Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 10 ATTACHMENT B CSR 7707-E COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Communities CUIDs Franchise Area Households Cable Subscribers Penetration Percentage Clark Township OH2738 663 77 11.61 Delhi Township OH2739 10357 15 0.14 Dodson Township OH2453 929 73 7.86 Fairfield Township (Highland County) OH2451 1204 95 7.89 Green Township (Brown County) OH2436 1213 14 1.45 Green Township (Clinton County) OH2735 963 31 2.56 Hamilton Township OH0945 3524 399 11.32 Harrison Township OH0816 4572 571 12.49 Liberty Township (Butler County) OH2594 7062 786 11.13 Liberty Township (Highland County) OH2455 3997 400 10.01 Liberty Township (Adams County) OH2717 635 56 8.82 Madison Township OH2452 2675 96 3.59 Marion Township OH2721 2075 108 5.20 Meigs Township OH2448 1415 65 4.59 Perry Township (Brown County) OH1638 1704 89 5.22 Perry Township (Fayette County) OH2740 354 25 7.06 Salem Township OH2737 242 32 13.22 Tiffin Township OH2449 2066 232 11.23 Turtlecreek Township OH1297 3279 366 11.16 Union Township (Warren County) OH2736 1756 147 8.37 Washington Township OH2206 675 58 8.59 Wayne Township OH1186 1480 175 9.80 Winchester Township OH2741 745 3 0.40 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-948 11 ATTACHMENT C CSR 7707-E COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Communities CUIDs Blanchester Village OH0313 Cherry Fork Village OH2466 Deerfield Township OH0869 Fairfield Township OH0634 Fayetteville Village OH1493 Franklin Township OH0379 Hamilton Township OH0945 Harrison City OH0720 Highland Village OH1312 Hillsboro City OH0182 Leesburg Village OH0638 Lynchburg Village OH0637 Mason City OH0726 Miami Township OH0840 Midland Village OH1494 Milville Village OH0834 Monroe City OH0838 Montgomery City OH0706 Peebles Village OH0229 St. Martin Village OH1531 Seaman Village OH1068 South Lebanon Village OH090351 Springdale City OH0731 Sycamore Township OH0710 Terrace Park Village OH0723 TrentonCity OH0615 West Union Village OH0214 Wilmington City OH0328 Winchester Village OH1069 51 Time Warner’s Letter of Nov. 17, 2008, supra note 5, listed a second CUID number for South Lebanon, OH1640, although this was not mentioned in the Petition.