FEDERAL COMMUNICATI ONS COMMISSION 
W ASH I NGTON 
O FFIC E OF 
T HE C HAIRMAN 
The Honorable Michael Bennet 
United States Senate 
458 Russell Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 
Dear Senator Bennet: 
June 5, 2015 
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the Commission's implementation of 
Section 111 of the TELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR). 
As you know, Congress established the test for Effective Competition currently 
implemented by the Commission in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition 
Act of 1992 (" 1992 Cable Act"). The statutory test for the type of Effective Competition at issue 
in the proposed Order is satisfied if the franchise area is "(i) served by at least two unaffiliated 
[MVPDs] each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the 
households in the franchise area; and (ii) 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."1 When the Commission adopted the presumption of no 
Effective Competition in 1993, incumbent cable operators had approximately a 95 percent 
market share of MVPD subscribers. 
In the more than twenty years since Congress' s 1992 instructions, competition in the 
video marketplace has increased dramatically. The nationwide presence of DIRECTV (which 
provides local broadcast channels to 197 markets representing over 99 percent of U.S. homes) 
and DISH Network (which provides local broadcast channels to all 210 markets), alongside the 
significant number of direct broadcast satellite (DBS) subscribers (34.2 million or 33.9 percent 
of MVPD subscribers),2 results in approval of Effective Competition petitions in almost every 
instance. The FCC has granted Effective Competition petitions in over 10,000 communities thus 
far and found that Effective Competition exists in more than 99.5 percent of the commuruties 
evaluated since 2013. 
1 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)( I). This type of Effective Competition is known as Competing Provider Effective Competition. 
The other three types of Effective Competition defined in the statute are Low Penetration Effective Competition, 
Municipal Provider Effective Competition. and Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) Effective Competition. Only a 
fresumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition is at issue in this proceeding. 
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Sixteenth 
Report, 30 FCC Red 3253, 3256, 2, and 3300-0 I, 112-113 (2015) . 
Page 2-The Honorable Michael Bennet 
In adopting a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition, the 
Commission provided the administrative relief for small cable operators required by Section 111 
of STELAR. It also preserved the ability of local franchising authorities (LF As) to rate regulate 
if they are able to provide data refuting the presumption. Less than one-fifth of the communities 
currently eligible to rate regulate have taken the administrative steps necessary to do so, but 
LF As that demonstrate a lack of Effective Competition will continue to be able to provide 
regulatory safeguards. Furthermore, other franchising authority abi lities, including the collection 
of franchise fees, negotiation or oversight of PEG channels and I-Nets, or creation and 
enforcement of customer service requirements, will not be affected. 
Several commenters have suggested that this Commission action will result in the 
elimination of the basic service tier of programming, resulting in higher prices for price-sensitive 
cable customers.3 However, there has been no evidence in this proceeding to suggest that our 
previous findings of Effective Competition in thousands of communities led to any changes in 
the tier placement of local broadcast stations. Effective Competition has been declared in large 
Colorado cities, such as Colorado Springs, as well as small towns such as Log Lane, but none of 
the cable systems serving these communities have removed the basic service tier. 
The initiatives that I have put forth at the Commission indicate my strong support for 
maintaining and improving affordable programming options. The recently adopted item does 
nothing to undermine these goals. Instead, it provides the specific relief requested by Congress 
and acknowledges the response in the video marketplace to the aims of the 1992 Act. 
I appreciate your interest in thi s matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further 
assistance. 
3 See, e.g., Letter from Erin L. Dozier, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Legal and Regulatory 
Affairs, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (May 15, 20 15). See also Lener from Public Knowledge et al. 
to The I lonorable Tom Wheeler et al. (May 26, 2015).