FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
$// MO&0, Cable Act of 1992, DA 94-1536 //$
$/ 300.623 Regulation of Rates /$
$/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$
$/ 76.906 Presumption of no effective competion /$
$/ 76.910 Franchising authority certification /$
$/ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification /$

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

In the Matter of:    )                                           DA 94-1536
              )
HORIZON CABLE I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP )
              )
Petition for Reconsideration        )
of Certification of  )
Oneida Charter Township, MI         )
to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates      )
(MI1719)      )

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  December 19, 1994         Released:  December 21, 1994

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.     INTRODUCTION

       1.     On November 12, 1993, Horizon Cable I Limited Partnership ("Horizon")
filed a timely petition for reconsideration challenging the certification of the Oneida Charter
Township, MI ("Oneida") to regulate rates for basic cable service and associated equipment. 
Oneida filed an opposition to which Horizon filed a reply. 

       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.    Horizon argues that its cable system is subject to effective competition because
it serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in Oneida, its franchise area.  Specifically,
Horizon states that it serves 96 of the 1,109 "homes," or nine percent of the total number of
"homes," within the franchise area.   In support of this claim, Horizon refers to a specific
section of the 1990 Census.  Finally, Horizon 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.  Horizon has failed to meet this burden.  Horizon refers to 1990 Census
data in its petition; but does not provide a copy of the relevant table or page from the data
upon which it is relying.  However, it appears that Horizon has inappropriately based its 
effective competition claim on the number of "housing units" (occupied and vacant) data.  
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 Horizon has failed to base its effective competition claim on "household" data as required
by our rules, we will deny its petition.  Should Horizon wish to submit more specific
information sufficient to demonstrate the presence of effective competition, it may submit
such information by filing a petition for revocation pursuant to Section 76.914 of the
Commission's rules.  47 C.F.R.  76.914. 

III. ORDERING CLAUSES

     5     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by
Horizon Cable I Limited Partnership challenging the certification of the Oneida Charter
Township, 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 Horizon Cable I Limited Partnership
SHALL FILE the required rate justifications on the applicable forms with the Oneida Chater
Township 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 Oneida Charter Township that it is
regulating Horizon'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