Federal Communications Commission DA 16-263
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 
Petition for Determination of Effective 
Competition in Lacey, Washington 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
          
           
MB Docket No. 13-313, CSR 8862-E
           
           
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 9, 2016                          Released:  March 10, 2016
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) 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 Comcast is subject to effective competition in the community listed on Attachment A (the 
Community”).  Comcast alleges that its cable system serving the Community 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 rules,
2
and that it is therefore exempt 
from cable rate regulation in the Community because of the competing service provided by two direct 
broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”) and DISH Network (“DISH”).  The 
petition is opposed by the City of Lacey (the “City” or “Lacey”).  Comcast filed a reply.    
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.
3
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 Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.
4
  
For the reasons set forth below, we grant Comcast’s petition. 
II. THE COMPETING PROVIDER TEST
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 
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 
                                                          
1
47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B).
2
47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
3
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”). 
4
See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1); 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.905(b), 76.906.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-263
2
households in the franchise area.
5
  This test is referred to as the “competing provider” test.  Pursuant to 
the Effective Competition Order, absent evidence to the contrary, the Commission presumes that the 
competing provider test is met.
A. The First Part
4. 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 
households in the franchise area.
6
  As explained in the Effective Competition Order, “we find that the 
ubiquitous nationwide presence of DBS providers, DIRECTV and DISH, presumptively satisfies the” 
first part of the test for competing provider effective competition, absent evidence to the contrary.
7
  The 
City has not put forth any information to rebut the first part of the competing provider test.  In accordance 
with the presumption of competing provider effective competition, and based on the information 
submitted by Comcast, we thus find that the first part of the test is satisfied.
B. The Second Part
5. 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.
8
  As explained in the Effective Competition Order, “[w]ith regard to the second prong of the test, we 
will presume that more than 15 percent of the households in a franchise area subscribe to programming 
services offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD.”
9
  The City argues that Comcast has not 
demonstrated that Lacey is subject to effective competition because it relied upon outdated household 
data from the 2010 Census.
10
  While the City does not contend that the Census figure for occupied 
households in Lacey is wrong, it does argue that Comcast did not consider more recent information that 
reflected: (i) an increase of 787 new housing units in Lacey between 2010 and 2013, (ii) a decrease in the 
number of homes for sale in Thurston County (where Lacey is located), and (iii) a decrease in the City’s 
apartment vacancy rate to 4.8 percent in 2013.
11
  
6. Comcast responds that the Washington State Office of Financial Management’s 
(“OFM”) “Postcensal Estimates of Housing Units” data referenced by the City to demonstrate an increase 
of 787 new housing units is expressed in terms of “total” housing units, rather than “occupied” housing 
units which is the relevant standard for effective competition purposes.
12
  Comcast explains, and we 
agree, that even if the Commission were inclined to do so, it could not accept the OFM data for effective 
competition purposes because the 787 housing unit figure would necessarily include unoccupied housing 
units.
13
  Regarding the City’s claims about a lower real estate inventory rate for Thurston County and a 
4.8 percent apartment vacancy rate for Lacey in 2013, Comcast responds that the City provides no details 
supporting the accuracy of those figures.
14
  Comcast also notes that Thurston county-wide real estate 
                                                          
5
47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
6
47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i).
7
Effective Competition Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6580-81, ¶ 8.
8
47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(ii).
9
Effective Competition Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6581-82, ¶ 9.
10
City of Lacey Opposition at 2. 
11
Id. at 2-3. 
12
Comcast Reply at 3.
13
Id.
14
Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-263
3
inventory rates are not indicative of the inventory rate in the community of Lacey itself, and the City 
apartment vacancy rates do not necessarily reflect vacancy rates for overall housing units in Lacey.
15
Comcast contends that ultimately the City fails to present a specific alternative to the vacancy rate 
reported in the 2010 Census.
16
  Comcast asserts, and we agree, that the City is asking the Commission to 
rely on speculation that general changes in the Lacey housing market might result in a lower DBS 
penetration rate in the City.
17
7. Comcast’s use of Census figures in this case was proper and fully consistent with 
Commission precedent.  While the Commission has stated that it will consider more recent household 
data, it will only consider such a submission if the local franchising authority demonstrates that it is
reliable.  While the City attempts to identify changes in the local housing market, it does not reconcile 
these alleged differences with the original 2010 Census data submitted by Comcast.  In addition, the City 
makes no attempt to demonstrate that the DBS penetration rate in Lacey is below the required 15 percent 
threshold.  Accordingly, we do not consider the alternative data submitted by the City to be reliable data 
that should be used in place of the U.S. Census data submitted by Comcast.  For the above reasons, the 
arguments put forth by the City fail to rebut the presumption of competing provider effective competition.  
In accordance with the presumption of competing provider effective competition, and based on the 
information submitted by Comcast and the City, we find that the second prong of the test is satisfied.        
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, IS GRANTED
as to the Community listed on Attachment A hereto. 
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates 
granted to or on behalf of the Community set forth on Attachment A IS REVOKED. 
10. 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
                                                          
15
Id.
16
Id., see also Petition at Exhibit 5 (2010 Census data for occupied and vacant housing units in Lacey).
17
Comcast Reply at 3. 
18
47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-263
4
ATTACHMENT A
CSR 8862-E, MB Docket No. 13-313
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Communities
CUIDs  CPR*
2010 Census
Households
Estimated DBS 
Subscribers
Lacey WA0166 16.90% 16, 949 2,864
   *CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.