$/ FOR FCC RECORD ONLY /$

$// MO&O, Cable Act of 1992, DA 94-1443//$
$/ 300.623 Regulation of Rates /$
$/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$
$/ 76.906 Presumption of no effective competition /$
$/ 76.910 Franchising authority certification /$
$/ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification /$

                               Before the
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         Washington, D.C.  20554

In the Matter of:                    )                 DA 94-1443
                                     )
MERCOM, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARY,     )
COMMUNICATIONS AND                   )
CABLEVISION, INC.,                   )
D/B/A RIVER RAISIN CABLEVISION       )
                                     )
Petition for Reconsideration         )
                                     )
of the Certification of              )
City of Monroe, MI                   )
to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates)
(MI0765)                             )

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Adopted:  December 9, 1994              Released:  December 12, 1994

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   On November 12, 1993, Mercom, Inc. and its subsidiary, Communications
and Cablevision, Inc., d/b/a River Raisin Cablevision, ("Mercom") filed a timely petition for
reconsideration challenging the certification of the City of Monroe ("the City") to regulate
rates for basic cable service and associated equipment.  The City filed a supplement to an
opposition to the petition for reconsideration on August 19, 1994, but had never filed an
original opposition.  While their supplement is untimely, the assertions made by the City
would not change the outcome of this order.

     2.   Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, 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 they have actual
knowledge to the contrary.  Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing
unless the Commission finds that the franchising authority does not meet the statutory
certification requirements.  Cable operators may file petitions for reconsideration of the
franchising authority's certification within 30 days from the date such certification becomes
effective.  Rate regulation is automatically stayed pending review of a timely-filed petition
for reconsideration alleging the presence of effective competition.

II.  DISCUSSION

     3.   Mercom argues that its cable system is subject to effective competition because
it serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in the City of Monroe, its franchise area. 
Specifically, Mercom states that it serves 77 of the 8,840 "homes" within the City or less
than 1 percent of the total number of "homes" within the franchise area.   In support of this
claim, Mercom refers to a specific section of the 1990 Census that indicates that there are
8,840 "housing units" in the City of Monroe.  Finally, Mercom submits a declaration under
penalty of perjury from a responsible official certifying the accuracy of the data in the
petition. 

     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 the
franchise area.  Mercom has failed to meet this burden.  Specifically, Mercom
inappropriately relied upon "housing unit" data rather than "household" data to support its
effective competition claim.  Mercom's claim is based on the number of housing units (that
is, occupied and vacant units) within the franchise area.  Our rules, however, require the use
of data reflecting the number of "households" (i.e., occupied housing units) in the franchise
area.  See Third Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92-266 and 92-262, 9 FCC
Rcd 4316, 4324 (1994) ("Third Recon. Order").  As Mercom has failed to base its effective
competition claim on "household" data as required by our rules, we will deny its petition.

III. ORDERING CLAUSES

     5    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by
Mercom, Inc. and its subsidiary, Communications and Cablevision, Inc. d/b/a River Raisin
Cablevision challenging the certification of the City of Monroe, MI to regulate basic cable
rates IS DENIED. 

     6.   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.

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mercom, Inc. and its subsidiary,
Communications and Cablevision, Inc. d/b/a River Raisin Cablevision SHALL FILE the
required rate justifications on the applicable forms with the City of Monroe, MI, within
thirty (30) days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order or within thirty
(30) days of receipt of notice from the City of Monroe that it is regulating Mercom's rates,
whichever is later.

     8.   This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.321
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                         Meredith J. Jones
                         Chief, Cable Services Bureau