Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1507 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of CoxCom, LLC d/b/a Cox Communications New England Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Rhode Island ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MB Docket No. 13-27, CSR 8764-E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 2, 2013 Released: July 2, 2013 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. CoxCom, LLC d/b/a Cox Communications New England, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” has filed with the Commission a petition 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 the Rhode Island Area 7 Franchise Area,1 hereinafter referred to as the “Franchise Area.” Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Franchise Area is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”),2 and the Commission’s implementing rules,3 and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Franchise Area because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”), and DISH Network (“DISH”). 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,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 petition based on our finding that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Franchise Area. 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 multichannel video 1 See Petition at 1 and n.1. According to Petitioner, its television system in Newport County, Rhode Island serves the following communities: Newport (RI0027), Jamestown (RI0030), Middletown (RI0028), Portsmouth (RI0026), Tiverton (RI0025), and Little Compton (RI0029). Id. These communities collectively comprise the Rhode Island Area 7 Franchise Area, as defined in Petitioner’s franchise agreement and as determined by the State of Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers. Id. 2 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B). 3 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). 4 Id. § 76.906. 5 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905. 6 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906-.907(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1507 2 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.7 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.8 It is undisputed that the Franchise Area is “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.9 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.10 We further find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion that potential customers in the Franchise Area are reasonably aware that they may purchase the service of these MVPD providers.11 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,12 and is supported in this petition with copies of channel lineups for both DIRECTV and DISH.13 Also undisputed is Petitioner’s assertion that both DIRECTV and DISH offer service to at least “50 percent” of the households in the Franchise Area because of their national satellite footprint.14 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 Franchise Area.15 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 attributable to the DBS providers within the Franchise Area on a zip code plus four basis.16 6. Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using Census 2010 household data,17 as reflected in Attachment A, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that 7 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). 8 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B)(i); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i). 9 See Petition at 5. 10 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, ¶ 3 (2006). 11 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(e)(2); see Petition at 5-6. 12 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). See also Petition at 3-4. 13 See Petition at 4 and Exh. 3. 14 See id. at 3. 15 Id. at 7. 16 See id. at 7-8. 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. 17 Id. at 8-9 and Exhs. 2, 6-7. Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1507 3 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. Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied. 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 Franchise Area. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective competition filed in the captioned proceeding by CoxCom, LLC d/b/a Cox Communications New England IS GRANTED for the Franchise Area. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates granted to the State of Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers for the Franchise Area IS REVOKED. 9. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the Commission’s rules.18 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven A. Broeckaert Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau 18 47 C.F.R. § 0.283. Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1507 4 ATTACHMENT A FRANCHISE AREA SERVED BY COXCOM, LLC d/b/a COX COMMUNICATIONS NEW ENGLAND MB Docket No. 13-27, CSR 8764-E Franchise Area CPR* 2010 Census Households Estimated DBS Subscribers Rhode Island Area 7 Franchise Area (includes Newport (RI0027), Jamestown (RI0030), Middletown (RI0028), Portsmouth (RI0026), Tiverton (RI0025), and Little Compton (RI0029)) 15.42 34,911 5,383 *CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.