ÿWPC,; ûÿ2œÿÿBJÿÿZ ÿÿ¢úCourier3|x'¾ôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿHP4Si Room 804_2; LPT24_2HPLAS4SI.PRSÛx Œ @ɇÏð\ðÔ yX@Ô ‰?´<ÔÐ ÈÈ ÐÓ@--@ÓÐÐÐЊÑ#ôxþ6X@ɹ`7û¾X@#Ñûÿ2~ÿÿÎKÞK) t3|x'"‚i~×'ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ^:DPdd¨œDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX¸„„|pDL|°p„p|¼|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8œddddDL8ddddX`(`låD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXX°‚„X|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXX„X„X„l„X~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdŒplld|8|P|D|D|8dvdddd°„D„D„DpLpLpLpl|T|8|\dddddd¼l|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddÀd8@˜˜d<@˜˜d˜<DDXXdÈDDxÈddÄz˜ÈHÈxxHv§§ppÈDXd¨È<"„„„„˜˜¸ÈÈd˜ÈxtldpÄxxÈd"‚i~×'ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ^:DPdd¨œDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX¸„„|pDL|°p„p|¼|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8œddddDL8ddddX`(`låD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXX°‚„X|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXX„X„X„l„X~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdŒplld|8|P|D|D|8dvdddd°„D„D„DpLpLpLpl|T|8|\dddddd¼l|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddÀd8@˜˜d<@˜˜d˜<DDXXdÈDDxÈddÄz˜ÈHÈxxHv§§ppÈDXd¨È<"„„„„˜˜¸ÈÈd˜ÈxtldpÄxxÈdÐÐûÿ2 Z°K KU f   HP4Si Room 804_2; LPT24_2HPLAS4SI.PRSÛx Œ @ɇÏð\ðÔ yX@"‚i~×'ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd¼„„|œœLdœ„¼œ|œp„È„D8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8¨pdppXLDpdddXP,PhåD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddÈX„X„X„X„XJ8J8J8J8pœdœdœdœdppppddpšdœdddzpdddXXhX”„X„X„X„XœdœdœdœhœdœpœtL8LpLDLp¢phhœp„8„Z„D„P„8pppœdœdÆXXXpLpLpLph„f„D„tppppppÈh„X„X„Xp„DppL„Dd’4ddC6CWŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒŒxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddÀd><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx<åkkxxx"k<((xxxxxWIxkWWWWWWWWWW(x Ã<ÔÁ` `  ÁÑ#XwϾ¦ PìE37û½}XP#ÑAs the Commission stated recently, "we presume that Congress did not intend 'households' to have a different meaning than in the 1990 Census that would include vacant Ô ’YÃ-Ôunits." ÃÃThird Order on ReconsiderationÄÄ, MM Docket Nos. 92©266 and 92©262, 9 FCC Rcd Ô ’YûÃ-Ô4316, 4324 (1994) ("ÃÃThird Recon. OrderÄÄ"). The count of "households" in the 1990 Census Ô ’YæÃ-Ôreflects only occupied housing units. ÃÃSeeÄÄ Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population, CP©1©1B, Appendix B at B©8.‰Ö in the franchise area. American also submits a computer print©out with sufficient subscriber information to show that it serves 4,799 households in the franchise area. Finally, American provides affidavits by a responsible official certifying the accuracy of the data included in the petition and the supplement to the petition. Ô Y1Ã-ÔÁŠÁØ‚4.ØÁ` ` ¸ÁThe City concedes that American serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area. The City's objection to American's petition is based on its Ô Y Ò-Ôcontention that American has made an affirmative decision to limit its actual service area.Ö¥   gÔ ’YÊÃ<ÔÁ` ` ¸ÁÑ#XwϾ¦ PìE37û½}XP#ÑIn the ÃÃFirst Order on ReconsiderationÄÄ, the Commission clarified the definition Ô ’YµÃ-Ôof "franchise area" for purposes of determining effective competition. ÃÃFirst Order on Ô ’Y Ã-ÔReconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed RulemakingÄÄ, MM Ô ’Y‹Ã-ÔDocket No. 92©266, 9 FCC Rcd 1164 (1993) ("ÃÃFirst Recon. OrderÄÄ"). Generally, "[a] franchise area is the area a system operator is granted authority to serve in its franchise." Ô ’Y_Ã-ÔÃÃId.ÄÄ at 1180. The Commission stated, however, that a more restricted definition of "franchise area" may be appropriate under limited circumstances, such as when an operator "has itself, through its own conduct, self©defined the areas to be served to such an extent that this Ô ’Y!Ã-Ôredefined area accurately portrays the operator's 'franchise area.'" ÃÃId.ÄÄ at 1181. Under this standard, the franchising authority has the burden of showing that the operator has made an Ô ’Yð"Ã-Ô"affirmative decision . . . to restrict service." ÃÃId.ÄÄ¥Ö The City claims that American has not satisfied certain "must build provisions" of the franchise agreement requiring American to establish a particular service area by January 1, 1990 and eventually serve the entire franchise area where population density exceeds 35 occupied dwellings per mile. The City claims that, as a result, American has redefined the franchise area for purposes of the effective competition standard. In response, AmericanÔ"ï 0* ( (°°-ð"Ô refers the Commission to its pleadings in two other proceedings (Nos. CSR 4206 and CSR 4198©P) in which it claims that its competitor, by engaging in discriminatory pricing and unfair methods of competition, has prevented it from expanding its service area in the City. Ô Y»Ã-Ôà ÃÄ Ä Ô Y¤Ã-ÔÁŠÁØ‚5.ØÁ` ` ¸ÁIn the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed Ô YÒ-Ônot to be subject to effective competition.ÖnégÔ YÃ<ÔÁ` ` ¸ÁÑ#XwϾ¦ PìE37û½}XP#Ñ47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.906.nÖ The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's Rules, is present within the Ô YHÒ-Ôfranchise area.ÖtéHygÔ Yr Ã<ÔÑ#XwϾ¦ PìE37û½}XP#ÑÁ` ` ¸Á47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.911(b)(1).tÖ American has met this burden. Ô Y Ã-ÔÁŠÁØ‚6.ØÁ` ` ¸ÁAs a preliminary matter, we are unpersuaded that the appropriate franchise area for purposes of effective competition is something less than the entire City of Columbus. The City provides insufficient evidence to support its claim that American has made an affirmative decision to limit its service to the more densely populated areas within the City. Without providing adequate support for its claims, the City merely concludes that American has decided not to serve the entire franchise area since certain service requirements of the franchise agreement have not been met. However, "[t]he fact that a franchise area has not as yet been filled out by construction of a system would not by itself be taken as redefining the Ô YbÒ-Ôservice area."Öyéb*gÔ ’W=Ã<ÔÁ` ` ¸ÁÃÃÑ#XwϾ¦ PìE37û½}XP#ÑFirst Recon. Order, supra. ÄÄyÖ Therefore, we find that the City has failed to sustain its burden of proof that American has redefined its franchise area. Ô YÃ-ÔÁŠÁØ‚7.ØÁ` ` ¸ÁAmerican appropriately relied on data reflecting the number of households as Ô YÒ-Ôrequired by our rules.ÖxéÛgÔ ’W’Ã<ÔÁ` ` ¸ÁÑ#XwϾ¦ PìE37û½}XP#ÑÃÃThird Recon. Order, supra.ÄÄxÖ Relying on this data, American has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that its cable system serving the City, its franchise area, serves 4,799 of the 65,942 households, or 7.3 percent of the households, within its franchise area. Thus, we find American's system serving the City of Columbus is subject to effective competition. Accordingly, its petition is granted. Ô ‘X|Ã-Ôà ÃÄ Äà ÃIII. Ä Äà ÃORDERING CLAUSESÄ Ä Ô ‘YNÃ-ÔÁŠÁØ‚8.ØÁ` ` ¸ÁAccordingly, à ÃIT IS ORDEREDÄ Ä that the petition for revocation filed by Ô ‘Y8Ã-ÔAmerican Cable Company challenging the certification of the City of Columbus à ÃIS GRANTED. Ô ‘YôÃ-ÔÁŠÁÄ ÄØ‚9.ØÁ` ` ¸Áà ÃIT IS FURTHER ORDEREDÄ Ä that the certification of the City of Columbus, Ô ‘YÞÃ-ÔGeorgia to regulate American's basic cable rates à ÃIS RESCINDEDÄ Ä.Ô"ÞŒ0* ( (°° !ð"ÔŒÔ ‘YÃ-Ô™ÁŠÁØ‚ 10.ØÁ` ` ¸Áà ÃIT IS FURTHER ORDEREDÄ Ä that American's request for a stay of rate Ô ‘YêÃ-Ôregulation à ÃIS DISMISSEDÄ Ä as moot. Ô YÔÃ-Ôà ÃÄ Ä Ô Y½Ã-ÔÁŠÁØ‚ 11.ØÁ` ` ¸ÁThis action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 0.321. Ô ‘XÃ-ÔÁŠÁà à Ô YJÃ-ÔÁŠÁÁ` ` ¸ÁÁ¸ ¸ æÁÁÁÁhhCÁÄ ÄFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ÁŠÁÁ` ` ¸ÁÁ¸ ¸ æÁÁÁÁhhCÁMeredith J. Jones ÁŠÁÁ` ` ¸ÁÁ¸ ¸ æÁÁÁÁhhCÁChief, Cable Services Bureau