$/ FOR FCC RECORD ONLY /$ $// MO&O, Cable Act of 1992, DA 95-51//$ $/ 300.623 Regulation of Rates /$ $/ 1.106 Petitions for Reconsideration /$ $/ 76.906 Presumption of no effective competition /$ $/ 76.910 Franchising authority certification /$ $/ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification /$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) DA-95-51 ) DOUGLAS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, ) LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ) ) Petition for Reconsideration ) ) of the Certification of ) Topeka, Kansas, ) to Regulate Basic Cable Service ) Rates (KS0564) ) By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 13, 1995 Released: January 17, 1995 1. On November 5, 1993, Douglas Cable Communications, Limited Partnership, ("Douglas") submitted a timely petition for reconsideration challenging the certification of the City of Topeka, Kansas ("the City") to regulate the system's rates for basic cable service and associated equipment. The City filed a response to Douglas' petition stating that it did not oppose Douglas' 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. 3. Douglas argues that its cable system is subject to effective competition because its system meets the "low penetration" effective competition test specified in Section 623 (l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act. After considering Douglas' petition and in response to a letter dated December 27, 1994 from the Commission, the City submitted letters dated January 5, 1995 and January 6 1995 requesting withdrawal of its certification. In its January 5, 1995 letter, the City agreed that the "interest of Douglas Cable subscribers are protected by the presence of 'effective competition.'" In its January 6, 1995 letter, the City states that "neither the City of Topeka nor any of its officials or employees have received consideration in exchange for withdrawal of the City of Topeka's certification to regulate Douglas Cable's rates." 4. In light of the above filings by the City of Topeka, we will grant Douglas' petition for reconsideration. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by Douglas Cable Communications, Limited Partnership, challenging the certification of the City of Topeka, Kansas, to regulate its basic cable service rates IS GRANTED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification granted to the City of Topeka, Kansas, to regulate Douglas Cable Communications, Limited Partnership's basic cable rates IS RESCINDED. 7. 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