Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1098
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf 
of its subsidiaries and affiliates
Petition for Determination of Effective 
Competition in 18 Massachusetts Communities   
FCC Form 328 Certification Request    
                                          
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7852-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  September 27, 2016 Released:  September 28, 2016
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts (the Town or Falmouth) filed an Application for 
Review (Application) of the Media Bureau’s determination in the above-captioned proceeding that 
Comcast is subject to effective competition in several Massachusetts franchise areas, including 
Falmouth.
1
  The Town failed to timely serve the Application on Comcast as required by section 1.115(f) 
of the Commission’s rules.
2
  The Bureau granted Comcast an extension of time either to resolve matters
with the Town, or to file an opposition to the Application.
3
  Falmouth and Comcast subsequently filed a 
Joint Motion for Media Bureau Resolution requesting that the Application be delegated to the Bureau “for 
a prompt resolution mutually satisfactory to both parties.”
4
  In addition, both parties asked the Bureau to 
remove Falmouth from the list of communities for which Comcast was deemed subject to effective 
competition.
5
  The Commission subsequently required all franchising authorities with existing 
                                                          
1
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10454 (MB 2008) (Order). In its initial petition seeking an effective competition finding, 
Comcast argued that it is subject to competing provider effective competition in the 18 Massachusetts communities, 
including Falmouth.  The Order found that Comcast was subject to effective competition in all 18 of the 
communities. Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10456, para. 7.
2
47 CFR § 1.115(f).
3
See Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4902 
(MB 2009).
4
Joint Motion for Media Bureau Resolution at 1 (Joint Motion). Comcast joined the motion without prejudice to 
refiling an effective competition petition applicable to Falmouth. Id.  The Bureau granted the Joint Motion but did 
not resolve the Application, which is hereby relegated to the Bureau level.  Consequently, we will treat the 
Application as a petition for reconsideration (hereinafter referred to as the Petition for Reconsideration).  
5
Id.  Comcast stated that although it did not necessarily agree with the arguments Falmouth advanced in its 
Application, it was amenable to the removal of Falmouth from the Order’s list of effective competition
communities.  The Joint Motion further stated that the removal of Falmouth would reestablish cable rate regulation
in that community, which was the objective underlying the Town’s Application. Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1098
2
certifications that wished to remain certified to file a revised FCC Form 328 by December 8, 2015.
6
  The 
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable (MDTC)
7
filed FCC Form 328 on that date 
seeking to remain certified to regulate rates in several Massachusetts communities, including Falmouth.
8
  
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the certification of MDTC to regulate basic cable service rates 
in the Town of Falmouth and dismiss as moot the Petition for Reconsideration.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In June 2015, a Commission order adopted a rebuttable presumption that cable operators 
are subject to one type of effective competition, commonly referred to as “competing provider effective 
competition.”
9
  Accordingly, in the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, the Commission now 
presumes that cable systems are subject to competing provider effective competition, and it continues to 
presume that cable systems are not subject to any of the other three types of effective competition, as 
defined by section 623(l) of the Act, and section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.
10
MDTC, as the 
franchise authority for rate regulation of cable services throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
filed timely certifications for numerous Massachusetts communities, including Falmouth.  Comcast did 
not oppose MDTC’s certification for any franchise area, including Falmouth.
III. DISCUSSION
3.    Events that have occurred subsequent to our initial finding of effective competition have 
rendered it unnecessary to resolve the issues raised in the Petition for Reconsideration.  Specifically, 
Falmouth and Comcast filed the Joint Motion requesting that the Bureau remove Falmouth from the list 
of communities for which Comcast was deemed subject to effective competition and thereby
reestablishing cable rate regulation in that community.
11
  The Bureau granted the Joint Motion.
12
  
Thereafter, MDTC filed a revised Form 328 seeking to remain certified to regulate rates for several 
Massachusetts franchise areas, including the community at issue in this proceeding, Falmouth.
13
  
                                                          
6
See Notice of Effective Date of Revised Effective Competition Rules, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 10124, 10125 
(2015) (Effective Competition PN).  
7
MDTC is the franchise authority for rate regulation of cable services throughout the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts.
8
SeeMDTC Form 328, Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates and Initial 
Finding of Lack of Effective Competition (filed Dec. 8, 2015), available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=INBOX-76.910.
9
See Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of Section 111 of the 
STELA Reauthorization Act, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6574 (2015) (Effective Competition Order). Section 
623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), provides that a cable operator is subject to 
competing provider effective competition if the franchise area is (a) served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel 
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. 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); 47 CFR § 76.905(b)(2).
10
See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1); 47 CFR §§ 76.905(b), 76.906.
11
Joint Motion at 1.
12
See supra n. 4.
13
In its revised Form 328, MDTC asserts that the number of households subscribing to DBS does not exceed 15 
percent of the households in the franchise area, as required by the competing provider test for effective competition. 
MDTC Form 328, Attachment 3, Attachment to Question 6(a) at 3.  MDTC indicates that the number of DBS 
subscribers in Falmouth is 1,881 and the 2010 Census Data for Occupied Housing Units is 14,069.  MDTC 
calculates that the competing provider penetration rate in Falmouth is 13.37 percent. Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1098
3
Accordingly, we find that Falmouth is not subject to competing provider effective competition, or any 
other form of effective competition, in its franchise area.      
4. For the above reasons, we find that MDTC demonstrated that the presumption of 
competing provider effective competition does not apply to the Falmouth franchise area.  MDTC has been 
and remains certified to regulate basic cable service rates in the Falmouth franchise area.  Comcast does 
not dispute this conclusion.  Falmouth’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Media Bureau’s Order is 
accordingly dismissed.  Comcast remains free at any time in the future to file a petition for determination 
of effective competition challenging MDTC’s certification to regulate basic cable service rates in 
Falmouth under any of the four tests for effective competition.
14
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed in the above-
captioned proceeding IS DISMISSED. 
6. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.
15
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
                                                          
14
See 47 CFR § 76.907; 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A)-(D) (the four statutory tests for effective competition); 47 CFR § 
76.905(b)(1)-(4).
15
47 CFR § 0.283.