Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse 
Partnership
Petition for Determination of Effective 
Competition in Communities in Texas
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7727-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 17, 2013 Released:  December 18, 2013
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (“Time Warner” or “the 
Company”) 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 the Company is subject to effective competition in the 
Texas communities that are listed on Attachment A hereto.  Time Warner’s petition alleges that the 
Company’s cable system serving those 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 rules2 and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation there because of  
the competing services of two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers (DIRECTV, Inc., and DISH 
Network) and, in the community of Beverly Hills, Grande Communications (collectively, the “competing 
MVPDs”).  
2. After the close of the usual pleading cycle, Time Warner requested the withdrawal of one 
community named in the petition, Fort Hood, from consideration.3 We grant that request.  Still later, 
Time Warner requested that the presence of effective competition in another community, the City of 
Kempner (TX2392), be considered pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act4and 
Section 76.905(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules,5 which ask whether the Company serves fewer than 30 
  
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B).
2 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
3 Letter from Craig A. Gilley, Esq., Fleischman and Harding LLP, to  Steven A. Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Division 
Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau (November 17, 2008).  Fort Hood bears the CUIDs TX0764 and TX0765.
The petition’s title page does not list the City of Robinson, Texas, but the body of the petition contains information 
about it.  Petition at 1 & Exhs. A, C, E.  In correspondence with the Commission staff, Time Warner made clear that 
it is not seeking consideration of effective competition in that City.  E-Mail from John W. Berresford, Esq., 
Commission counsel, to Mr. Gilley, March 30, 2011, 3:47 PM; E-Mail from Mr. Gilley to Mr. Berresford, April 1, 
2011, 2:58 PM.  
4 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A).
5 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(1).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
2
percent of the households there (so-called “low penetration” effective competition).6 We grant this 
request also.
3. Oppositions to the petition were filed by local governments in two communities where 
Time Warner claims to be subject to effective competition from competing providers, the Cities of 
Copperas Cove7 and Harker Heights8 (collectively, “the Cities”).  Time Warner filed a separate reply to 
each opposition.9 When data became available from the 2010 Census, Time Warner refreshed the record 
by filing the numbers of households in the communities for which it is still claiming to be subject to 
effective competition.10 Commission staff, Time Warner, and the City of Harker Heights exchanged 
further comments about the significance of the relatively recent numbers.11
4. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be 
subject to effective competition,12 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act 
and Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.13 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.14
II. THE COMPETING PROVIDER TEST
5. The “competing provider test” for effective competition is set forth in Section 
623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and provides that a cable operator is subject to effective 
competition if its 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.15  
A. The First Part
6. The first part 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 
  
6 Letter from Craig Gilley, Esq., Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, counsel for Time Warner, to Steven A. 
Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Division Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau (March 22, 2011) (“Time Warner March 
22 Letter”).
7 Opposition to Petition for Special Relief by the City of Copperas Cove, Texas (“Copperas Cove Opposition”).
8 Opposition to Petition for Special Relief by the City of Harker Heights, Texas (“Harker Heights Opposition”).
9 Each was titled simply “Reply” and will be referred to by its associated opposition (e.g., “Copperas Cove Reply”).
10 Letter from Mr. Gilley to Steven A. Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Division Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau  
(April 29, 2011) (“Time Warner April 29 Letter”).  
11 E-Mail from Mr. Berresford to Mr. Gilley, May 9, 2011, 2:54 PM; E-Mail from Mr. Gilley to Mr. Berresford, 
May 9, 2011, 4:04 PM (“May 9 E-Mail”); E-Mail from Mr. Berresford to Messrs. Gilley and Grogan, May 10, 2011, 
10:43 AM; E-Mail from Mr. Gilley to Messrs. Berresford and Grogan, May 12, 2011, 12:45 PM (“May 12 E-Mail”); 
Letter from Mr. Grogan to Mr. Broeckaert, May 12, 2011 (“Time Warner May 12 Letter”); E-Mail from Mr. Gilley 
to Messrs. Berresford and Grogan, May 12, 2011, 4:22 PM; Letter from Mr. Gilley to Mr. Broeckaert, May 24, 2011 
(“May 24 Letter”); E-Mail from Mr. Grogan to Messrs. Berresford and Gilley, June 12, 2011, 2:57 PM. 
12 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
13 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b).
14 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906-.907(b).
15 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
3
households in the franchise area.16  It is undisputed that communities in which Time Warner is invoking 
the competing provider test are “served by” both DBS providers and that these two MVPDs 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.17  
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 of the availability of DBS service.18 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 programming19 and is supported in 
this petition with citations to the channel lineups for both DBS providers.20 Also undisputed is Time 
Warner’s assertion that both DBS providers offer service to at least “50 percent” of the households in the 
communities because of their national satellite footprint.21 Based on all the foregoing considerations, we 
find that the first part of the competing provider test is satisfied for all the communities in which Time 
Warner is invoking it.22  
B. The Second Part
7. The second part of the competing provider test requires that the number of households 
subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in a franchise 
area.  Time Warner asserts that it is the largest MVPD in all the communities in which it is invoking the 
competing provider test except Beverly Hills and Holland.23 In Beverly Hills, Grande Communications is 
the largest MVPD.24 In Holland, both Time Warner and the DBS providers have a household share of 
over 15 percent.25  The Commission has recognized that, in these circumstances, it is clear that MVPDs 
other than the largest one have a combined household share in excess of 15 percent.26 The second part of 
the competing provider test thus required Time Warner to calculate, for each community in which it 
claimed to be subject to competing provider effective competition, a ratio the numerator of which is the 
number of subscribers to competing MVPDs (who were the DBS providers, except in Beverly Hills and 
perhaps Holland) and the denominator of which is the number of households there.
  
16 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i).
17 See Petition at 3-5.
18 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, ¶ 3 (2006).
19 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g); see also Petition at 6.
20 See Petition at 4 n.12; id. at 6.
21 See id. at 7.
22 The Cities of Copperas Cove and Harker Heights do not object to this conclusion.  See, e.g., Copperas Cove 
Opposition at 3.
23 Petition at 7-8; E-Mail from Mr. Berresford to Mr. Gilley, May 17, 2011, 10:56 AM; E-Mail from Mr. Gilley to 
Mr. Berresford, May 17, 2011, 1:10 PM (collectively, “May 17 E-Mails”).
24 May 17 E-Mails.
25 Petition at 8.
26 If Time Warner is the largest MVPD, then MVPDs other than the largest one are the DBS providers, which have a 
combined share of over 15%.  On the other hand, if one of the DBS providers is the largest MVPD, then Time 
Warner (which alone has over 15%) and the other DBS provider combined have over 15%.  See, e.g., Comcast 
Cable Commun., LLC, Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 11-526 at ¶ 5 n.17 (rel. March 25, 2011), available at
2011 WL 1099554; Comcast Cable Commun., LLC, 23 FCC Rcd 10939, 10941, ¶ 9 (2008).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
4
8. Time Warner’s Unreliable Evidence. For each community in which Time Warner 
invoked the competing provider test, the data that Time Warner submitted included the number of 
subscribers to Time Warner’s basic cable service, the estimated number of subscribers to competing 
providers’ services, and the number of households.  The Company’s stated numbers of its own 
subscribers and the competing providers' subscribers show that their combined subscribers exceed 100 
percent of the households in three of the communities listed on Attachment A.  This evidence is 
inaccurate and unreliable.  Accordingly, we deny the petition as to these three communities.27 The 
pertinent data concerning them are listed on Attachment B.
9. Time Warner’s Other Evidence. For the remaining communities in which it claims to be 
subject to competing provider effective competition, the Company submitted subscriber tracking reports 
from the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (“SBCA”) that state the number of 
subscribers attributable to the DBS providers within those communities on a five-digit zip code basis.28  
Then, Time Warner calculated an allocation percentage to apportion the DBS subscribers in each five-
digit zip code between those that live within each community and those that live outside it.29 The 
Company then added up all the DBS subscribers that had been allocated to each community, producing an 
estimate of DBS subscribers there.  For the denominators of its competing provider ratios, Time Warner 
originally took numbers of households for each community from the 2000 Census.30 When household 
numbers from the 2010 Census became available, the Company refreshed the record with them.31  
10. Consistent with our longstanding policy,32 we use the household numbers from the most 
recent decennial Census, in this case the 2010 Census.  The resulting ratios show that competing MVPD 
subscribership is in excess of 15 percent in the communities listed in Attachment C (“the Attachment C 
Communities”).  This evidence, if accepted and not overcome by superior evidence or argument, shows 
that the second part of the competing provider effective competition test is satisfied in each Attachment C 
Community.
11. The Cities’ Objections. Concerning Time Warner’s DBS subscriber numbers for 
Copperas Cove and Harker Heights, the Cities object to the Company estimating competing MVPD 
subscribers by using five-digit zip code-based numbers and an allocation percentage.  The Cities argue 
that we should instead require relatively precise “Zip+4” or nine-digit zip code numbers, which obviate 
the need for an allocation factor.33 This objection lacks merit. We have repeatedly declined to require 
nine-digit zip code-based data in showings of competing provider effective competition.34 Neither City 
  
27 Time Warner Cable, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd 14422, 14424, ¶ 7 (2010); Time Warner Cable Inc., & Time Warner 
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 23 FCC Rcd 12069, 12072, ¶ 10 (2008); Time Warner Cable Inc., 
23 FCC Rcd 12210, 12212, ¶ 8 (2008), reconsideration of both decisions denied, 23 FCC Rcd 16483 (2008).
28 Petition at 8-9.  
29 Id. at 9; id., Exh. B & Exh. E, col. C.
30 Id. at Exh. C.
31 Time Warner April 29 Letter; May 9 E-Mail; May 12 E-Mail.  The communities listed on Attachment C do not 
suffer from the deficiency that causes us to deny the communities listed on Attachment B.
32 See, e.g., Charter Commun. Entertainment I LLC, Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 11-697 at ¶ 17 (rel. April 
18, 2011), available at 2011 WL 1483759; Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 
Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 11-494 at ¶ 21 (rel. March 16, 2011), available at 2011 WL 901296; 
Cablevision of Raritan Valley, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 6966, 6968, ¶ 6 (2004).
33 Copperas Cove Opposition at 5; Harker Heights Opposition at 5.
34 Time Warner Cable Inc., 25 FCC Rcd 5457, 5462, ¶ 16 (2010), application for review pending; Public Notice, 
Commission Clarifies Standards for Evidence of Competing Provider Effective Competition for Cable Service, 24 
FCC Rcd 8198 (2009); Bright House Networks, LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 4390, 4394, ¶ 11 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
5
has given us a reason to depart from that policy in this case.  Either City could have, but did not, purchase 
its own nine-digit report from SBCA to refute the Company's five-digit-based DBS subscriber number.  
We reject the Cities’ objection to Time Warner’s use of five-digit zip codes.
12. Second, the Cities object to the assumption underlying Time Warner’s allocation
percentages, namely that DBS subscribership is proportional throughout zip codes.35 They call this 
assumption “unfounded”36 and further allege that the parts of the zip codes that lie outside the Cities are 
“more sparsely populated and . . . may not be served by Time Warner.”37 This objection is theoretical and 
insubstantial.  As we stated in Bright House Networks, LLC, “competing provider cases necessarily 
involve the imperfect match between franchise areas and zip codes.  . . .  The formula that Bright House 
uses . . . is a reasonable one and has been approved by the Commission in many past decisions, even 
when most of a zip code lies outside a franchise area.  We are unwilling to depart here from this 
reasonable recognition of the state of available information.”38  
13. To the extent that the Cities imply that Time Warner has, in fact, overestimated DBS 
subscribership, their objection lacks merit for two reasons.  First, to the extent that the objection purports 
to be factual, it is flawed for being unaccompanied by documenting evidence, an affidavit39 or the 
verification40 that our rules require.  Second, conspicuous by its absence is any factual evidence such as a 
nine-digit based report from SBCA or a factual showing that the parts of the zip codes outside either City 
are not served by a cable operator and that there are enough DBS subscribers there to lower DBS 
subscribership within the City to 15 percent or less.  This absence is remarkable given each City’s 
undoubted familiarity with its territory and the surrounding areas.  In sum, the Cities’ theoretical and 
unsubstantiated objection is insufficient to overcome the Company’s detailed numerical evidence.41  
Accordingly, we reject the Cities’ objection to the allocation percentages for Copperas Cove and Harker
Heights.42
  
35 See Harker Heights Opposition at 3-4.
36 See Copperas Cove Opposition at 4.  
37 See id. at 4.
38 Bright House Networks, LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 4390, 4394, ¶ 10 (2007) (footnotes omitted).
39 47 C.F.R. § 76.6(a)(3) provides that “[f]acts must be supported by relevant documentation or affidavit.”
40 47 C.F.R. § 76.6(a)(4), in brief, requires that pleadings such as the Opposition contain a written verification that 
its signatory has a reasonable and good faith belief in the facts alleged and legal assertions made therein.
41 Comcast Cable Commun., LLC, Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 11-466 at ¶ 13 (rel. March 10, 2011) (“This 
is the supporting documentation that we have accepted in many hundreds of effective competition proceedings.”), 
available at 2011 WL 828968; Comcast Cable Commun., LLC, Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 11-429 at ¶ 13 
(rel. March 4, 2011) (“The Authorities' vague objections . . . are insufficient to overcome the Petitioner's objective 
evidence.  Petitioner's evidence, in the absence of any countervailing evidence or convincing argument by the 
Authorities, sustains its burden of proof”) (footnote omitted), available at 2011 WL 765080; Comcast Cable 
Commun. LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 694, 699, ¶ 14 (2007) (“Comcast”):
“By allowing Comcast to use [certain] data, the Commission is not shifting the burden of proof to 
the City; however, once Comcast has satisfied its burden of proof, the City can no longer simply 
rely on the presumption of no effective competition.  While the Commission understands that 
filing an opposition can be a time-consuming and costly endeavor, such a requirement does not 
imply that the petitioner's filing is viewed with deference.”
42 For the same reasons, we reject each City’s speculation that Time Warner may have erred measuring “the 
jurisdictional boundaries of the City.”  Copperas Cove Opposition at 5; Harker Heights Opposition at 5.  The City 
has produced no evidence that Time Warner made such an error.
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
6
14. Third, the Cities object to Time Warner using household numbers from the 2000 Census, 
which they argue fail to reflect growth in the number of households after 2000.43 Assuming that this 
objection has merit,44 Time Warner has rendered it moot by submitting household numbers from the 2010 
Census.
15. Finally, each City makes at least one objection that is specific to it.  The City of Copperas 
Cove objects that, contrary to Time Warner’s claim that Copperas Cove covers parts of two zip codes, in 
fact it covers only part of one zip code (76522).45 Even if this objection is valid, however, it does not 
defeat Time Warner’s petition.  The number of DBS subscribers in zip code 76522 amounts to well in 
excess of 15 percent of the households in Copperas Cove (whether the latter number is taken from the 
2000 Census or the 2010 Census).46 Accordingly, this objection by the City lacks merit.
16. The City of Harker Heights, for its part, makes two objections.  The first is that Time 
Warner’s DBS subscriber number for Harker Heights is drawn from only one five-digit zip code (76548), 
but in fact Harker Heights also includes part of another zip code (76513).47 This objection, far from 
weakening Time Warner’s case, strengthens it.  Adding another zip code would increase the number of 
DBS subscribers in Harker Heights while leaving the denominator of the ratio (households, derived from 
the Census) the same.  If the City’s objection is valid, then DBS subscribership in Harker Heights, which 
with one zip code is more than enough to show competing provider effective competition, rises further 
above the minimum.48
17. Second, the City of Harker Heights alleges that its households consist of an unusually 
large number of transient military personnel, and that this adds unreliability to a ratio that consists of a 
household number from 2010 and a DBS subscriber number from several years earlier.49 This objection 
fails for several reasons.  First, Time Warner’s statistical evidence is not undermined by the fact that a 
franchise area has a peculiarity, without objective evidence that the peculiarity lowers DBS subscribership 
to 15 percent or less.50 Second, the City’s objection lacks intuitive strength.  If an area has high 
transience, but the transient residents all have the same characteristic (in this case, military service), it 
may well be that DBS subscribership there will tend to stability rather than instability and that a 
subscriber number from one year is a good predictor of subscription several years later.  Third, Time 
  
43 See, e.g., Copperas Cove Opposition at 5.
44 We have routinely accepted Census-based household numbers that are several years earlier than DBS subscriber 
numbers in the absence of more recent and equally reliable household numbers.  Comcast Cable Commun., LLC, 
Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 11-496 at ¶ 39 (rel. March 18, 2011), available at 2011 WL 933540; 
Subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corp., 23 FCC Rcd 14141, 14143-45, ¶¶ 9-14 (2008); Comcast Cable 
Commun., LLC, 25 FCC Rcd 13340, 13342, ¶ 11 (2010).
45 Copperas Cove Opposition at 5 & Exh. A.
46 Copperas Cove Reply at 5-6 & Attachment A; May 12 E-Mail.
47 Harker Heights Opposition at 4-5.
48 Compare Petition at Exh. E (1078 DBS subscribers and 17.38% DBS subscribership) with Harker Heights Reply 
at Att. A (1433 DBS subscribers and 23.11% DBS subscribership).  Both these calculations use the household 
number from the 2000 Census.  In Attachment C hereto, we use the household number from the 2010 Census (and a 
DBS subscriber number from only zip code 76548).
49 Time Warner May 12 Letter at 1-2.
50 See 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, 22 FCC Rcd at 697, ¶ 9; 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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
7
Warner filed a DBS subscriber number, gathered by SBCA in May 2011, showing that DBS 
subscribership had increased significantly since the SBCA report filed with the petition.51 We use that  
number in this decision.
18. Conclusion. Based upon the aggregate competing MVPD subscribership levels that were 
calculated using Census 2010 household data, as reflected in Attachment C, we find that Time Warner 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 C Communities.  
Therefore, the second part of the competing provider test is satisfied for each of those Communities.  
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 C Communities.  
III. THE LOW PENETRATION TEST
19. Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject 
to effective competition in a franchise area if it serves fewer than 30 percent of the households there.  This 
test is referred to as the “low penetration” test.52 Time Warner 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 City of Kempner, which is listed in Attachment D.53 Based upon the subscriber 
penetration level calculated by Time Warner, as reflected in Attachment D, we find that the Company has 
demonstrated the percentage of households subscribing to its cable service is less than 30 percent of the 
households in the City of Kempner.  Therefore, the low penetration test is satisfied as to that community.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 
20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse 
Partnership IS DENIED for the communities listed in Attachment B and IS GRANTED for the 
Communities listed in Attachment C and Attachment D.
21. 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 C and D IS REVOKED. 
22. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.54
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
51 May 24 Letter.
52 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A).
53 Time Warner March 22 Letter.  
54 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
8
ATTACHMENT A
CSR 7727-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT – ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE 
PARTNERSHIP
Communities CUIDs
Bellmead TX0257
Belton TX0079
Beverly Hills TX0256
Bruceville-Eddy TX1090
Copperas Cove TX0080
Ft. Hood TX0764, TX0765
Harker Heights TX0233
Holland TX1063
Kempner TX2392
Killeen TX0081
Lacy-Lakeview TX0259
Lorena TX1068
McGregor TX0231
Nonanville TX0325
Temple TX0232
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
9
ATTACHMENT B
CSR 7727-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT – ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE 
PARTNERSHIP
Communities CUIDs  
Time Warner
Subscribers (1)
Competing 
MVPD 
Subscribers (2)
Sum of 1 
and 2
2010 
Census 
Households
City of Beverly Hills TX0256 330 360 690 680
City of Lorena TX1068 424 195 619 604
City of McGregor TX0231 1298 589 1887 1748
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
10
  ATTACHMENT C
CSR 7727-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT – ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE 
PARTNERSHIP
Communities CUIDs  CPR*
2010 Census
Households
Estimated Competing 
MVPD Subscribers
City of Bellmead TX0257 17.69 3425 606
City of Belton TX0079 27.45 6168 1693
City of Bruceville-Eddy TX1090 36.77 542 199
City of Copperas Cove TX0080 21.94 11858 2602
City of Harker Heights TX0233 25.98 9488 2465
City of Holland TX1063 48.28 406 196
City of Killeen TX0081 19.92 48052 9570
City of Lacy-Lakeview TX0259 18.83 2662 501
City of Nolanville TX0325 18.60 1473 274
City of Temple TX0232 23.18 26113 6054
* CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.  Some CPRs are not exactly correct because of fractional 
DBS subscribers used in Time Warner's calculations but not reproduced above.
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-2408
11
ATTACHMENT D
CSR 7727-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT – ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE 
PARTNERSHIP
Community CUIDs  2010 Census 
Households
Cable 
Subscribers
Penetration 
Percentage
City of Kempner TX2392 421 17 4.04