FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
$// MO&O, Cable Act of 1992, DA 94-1369//$
$/ 300.623 Regulation of Rates /$
$/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$
$/ 76.906 Presumption of no effective competition /$
$/ 76.910 Franchising authority certification /$
$/ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification /$

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION           DA 94-1369
                          Washington, D.C.  20554

In the Matter of:    )
              )
CABLEVISION, CABLE MANAGEMENT       )
ASSOCIATES    )
              )
Petition for Reconsideration        )
              )
of the Certification of             )
Ouachita Parish Police Jury, Louisiana,    )      
to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates      )
(LA0163, LA0164, LA0321)                   )
                                     
                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  November 30, 1994         Released:  December 1, 1994

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.     INTRODUCTION

       1.  On October 29, 1993, Cablevision, Cable Management Services ("CMA")
submitted a timely-filed petition for reconsideration challenging the certification of Ouachita
Parish Police Jury ("Ouachita") to regulate the system's rates for basic cable service rates
and associated equipment in South Monroe, LA (LA0163), North Monroe, LA (LA0164),
and Calhoun, LA (LA0321).  Ouachita did not file an opposition to CMA's petition.  

       2.  Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act, as amended, allows franchising
authorities to become certified to regulate basic cable service rates of cable operators that are
not subject to effective competition.  For purposes of the initial request for certification,
local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that cable operators within their
jurisdiction are not subject to effective competition unless the franchising authority has actual
knowledge to the contrary.  Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing
unless the Commission finds that the authority does not meet the statutory certification
requirements.  Cable operators may file petitions for reconsideration of the franchising
authority's certification within 30 days of the effective date of such certification.  Rate
regulation is automatically stayed pending review of a timely-filed petition for reconsideration
alleging the presence of effective competition.

II.    DISCUSSION

       3.  In its petition, CMA alleges that its rates are exempt from regulation because its
system serves fewer that 30 per cent of the households in the franchise area.  CMA claims
that it serves only 2,434 of the 50,000 "houses" in the parish.  No other information or
supporting documentation is provided.

       4.  In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not
to be subject to effective competition.  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 its
franchise area.  CMA has not met this burden.  First, CMA did not submit any supporting
documentation to support its claim.  Second, based on the information before us, it appears
that CMA's claim is inappropriately based on the number of houses in the franchising area. 
Our rules, however, require the use of data reflecting the number of "households" (i.e.,
occupied housing units) in the franchise area.  Third Order on Reconsideration, in MM
Docket Nos. 92-266 and 92-262, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4324 (1994).  

       5.  Third, CMA has apparently aggregated the number of subscribers and "houses"
for more than one cable system.  CMA claims that its "cable systems should not be regulated
since fewer than 30 per cent of the households subscribe to our service." (emphasis added). 
This language indicates that CMA is referring to more than one cable system; however, it
does not disclose the exact number.  As the Commission previously stated, effective
competition must be demonstrated for each cable system, regardless of whether the systems
in question are all located within one franchise area.  

       6.  Finally, CMA has not demonstrated that its effective competition claim is made on
a franchise area basis.  Specifically, CMA alleges effective competition with respect to three
communities.  However, there are no facts from which we can determine whether these
communities represent separate franchise areas.  If they do, a separate effective competition
showing must be made for each separate franchise area where certification is challenged
since the rules in question are administered on a franchise-area by franchise-area basis.  As
CMA did not measure its penetration level in a manner that is consistent with the
Commission's rules and policies, it has failed to demonstrate that effective competition
exists.  Accordingly, we deny its petition. 
III.   ORDERING CLAUSES

       7.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by
Cablevision, Cable Management Associates, Inc. challenging the certification of Ouachita
Parish Police Jury, LA to regulate Blue Ridge's basic cable rates IS DENIED.

       8.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the automatic stay imposed by Section
76.911(c) of the Commission's Rules, as amended,  47 C.F.R.  76.911(c) IS
TERMINATED.

       9.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cablevision, Cable Management Associates
Inc. SHALL FILE the required rate justifications on the appropriate forms with Ouachita
Parish Police Jury, LA within 30 days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order or within 30 days of receipt of notice from Ouachita Parish Police Jury, LA
that it is regulating rates, whichever is later.

    10.  This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.321 of
the Commission's Rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.

    
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





    Meredith J. Jones
    Chief, Cable Services Bureau