FOR FCC RECORD ONLY

$// MO&O, Cable Act of 1992, DA 94-1455//$
$/ 300.623 Regulation of rates /$
$/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$
$/ 76.906 Presumption of no effective competition /$
$/ 76.910 Franchising authority certification /$
$/ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification /$

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

In the Matter of:                       )                   DA 94-1455
                                   )
Mid Carolina Cable                      )                           
                                   )
Petition for Revocation                 )
                                   )
of the Certification of                 )
Aiken County Government (SC054                    )    
to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates        )


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  December 12, 1994             Released:  December 13, 1994

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   On February 18, 1994 South Carolina Cable TV, L.P., which operates as Mid
Carolina (" Mid Carolina") filed a petition challenging the certification of Aiken County
Government ("Aiken County") to regulate rates for basic cable service and associated
equipment.  Aiken County did not file an opposition to Mid Carolina's  petition.

     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.  Once the period for filing
petitions for reconsideration has elapsed, cable operators may challenge a franchising
authority's certification by filing a petition for revocation.  Regardless of its grounds,
however, the filing of a petition for revocation does not automatically trigger a stay of a
franchising authority's ability to regulate basic cable rates.

II.  DISCUSSION

     3.   Mid Carolina argues that its cable system is subject to effective competition
because it serves fewer than 30 percent of the "homes" in Aiken County, its franchise area. 
Mid Carolina asserts that it serves 37 of the  44,883 "homes" or approximately .08 percent
of the "homes" in Aiken County.  As supporting documentation, Mid Carolina submits a
declaration under penalty of perjury from a company official attesting to the accuracy of the
information submitted.  The declaration also notes that the "homes" data is taken from the
1990 Census of Housing.  However, no complete and specific cite to the 1990 Census is
offered.  In addition, the declaration does not explain whether this "homes" data represents
"household" data as that term is used for purposes of effective competition.  No other
documentation is given.

     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.  Mid Carolina has failed to meet that burden.  Mid Carolina did not support
its effective competition claim with adequate documentation.  Mid Carolina's declaration
under penalty of perjury in this case was purely conclusory.  Although Mid Carolina's
declaration makes reference to the 1990 Census, it does not explain the specific housing data
relied upon to support its effective competition claim.  Thus, it is unclear whether Mid
Carolina relied upon "household" data as required by our rules.  Accordingly, its petition is
denied.  

III. ORDERING CLAUSES

     5.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for revocation filed by Mid
Carolina Cable challenging the certification of Aiken County Government to regulate basic
cable rates IS DENIED.

     6.   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