$/ FOR FCC RECORD ONLY /$

$// MO&O, Cable Act of 1992, DA 95-29//$
$/ 300.623 Regulation of Rates /$
$/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$
$/ 76.906 Presumption of no effective competition /$
$/ 76.910 Franchising authority certification /$
$/ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification /$

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

In the Matter of:    )               DA 95-29
              )
RIGEL CSSF JOINT VENTURE            )
              )
Petition for Reconsideration        )
              )
of the Certification of             )
the City of Springfield, Georgia    )      
to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates      )
(GA0545)      )      

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  January 10, 1995          Released:  January 11, 1995      

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.     INTRODUCTION
       
       1.     On February 7, 1993, Rigel CSSF Joint Venture, ("Rigel") filed a timely
petition for reconsideration challenging the certification of the City of Springfield, Georgia
("the City") to regulate rates for basic cable service and associated equipment.  The City did
not file an opposition.

   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 which 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 franchise authority
has actual knowledge to the contrary.  Such 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 from the date such certification becomes
effective.  Regulation of rates is automatically stayed pending review of a timely filed
petition for reconsideration alleging effective competition.

II.    DISCUSSION
 
       3.     Rigel argues that its system serving the City of Springfield, Georgia, its
franchise area, is subject to effective competition because the system serves fewer than 30
percent of the homes within its franchise area.  Rigel states that it serves two of the 491
homes in Springfield or less than one percent of the total number of homes.  As support,
Rigel submits a declaration under penalty of perjury from a responsible company official
who, relying on a specific cite in the 1990 Census, states there are 491 "homes" in the City. 
In addition the declaration states that the cable system serves two subscribers.

       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.  Based on all of the evidence before us, we find that Rigel has met this
burden.

       5.     Contrary to Rigel's assertion, the Census data it cites does not indicate that
there are 491 "homes" in the franchise area.  Rather it indicates that there are 567 housing
units and 526 occupied housing units in Springfield.  Our rules require the use of data
reflecting the number of households in the franchise area.  See Third Order on
Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92-266 and 92-262, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4324 (1994). 
Relying on the data for occupied housing units, a comparison of the number of subscribers
Rigel claims to have (two)  in relation to the number of occupied housing units yields a
penetration level of .3 percent.  Thus, we find that Rigel's cable system serving Springfield,
Georgia is subject to effective competition.  Accordingly, its petition is granted.

       III.   ORDERING CLAUSES

       6.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for revocation filed by Rigel
CSSF Joint Venture, challenging the certification of Springfield, Georgia, to regulate Rigel's
basic cable rates IS GRANTED.
       7.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification filed by Springfield,
Georgia, to regulate Rigel CSSF Joint Venture's basic cable rates IS RESCINDED.

       8.     This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under 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