NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 July 10, 1995 IN REPLY REFER TO: CSR-4086-E Released: July 11, 1995 Mr. Arthur H. Harding Fleischman and Walsh 1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W. DA 95-1547 Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Dan Crisp President and COO Valley Wireless 5610 District Boulevard, #101 Bakersfield, CA 93313-2178 Re: Time Warner v. Valley Wireless (CSR-4086-E) Dear Mr. Harding and Mr. Crisp: This letter is in reference to the complaint filed on September 16, 1993 by Time Warner Cable, a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("Time Warner") against Valley Wireless TV ("Valley"), a wireless operator, alleging that Valley has failed to provide information necessary for Time Warner to properly assess whether it is subject to effective competition, as defined by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Commission's rules, in the city of Bakersfield and in Kern County, California. Review of the pleadings before us shows that Valley has provided Time Warner with certain information as to the reach and penetration of its system. Specifically, in its June 4, 1993 letter to Time Warner, Valley states that, with respect to Bakersfield "it would be safe to conclude that as of this date [its] service is technically and actually available to over 50% of the franchise area, presently being served by your organization in the City of Bakersfield, and that [its] subscriber base represents less than 15% of the homes within the City of Bakersfield, presently being served by Time-Warner and or Cox Cable." Similarly, with respect to Kern County, Valley stated that "[its] service is technically and actually available to over 50% of the franchise area, presently being served by your organization, and that our subscriber base represents less than 15% of the homes within your county franchise area." Further, Valley provided certain additional information in its August 25, 1993 letter to Time Warner. Time Warner's Reply argues that these numbers are vague and incomplete. Pursuant to Section 76.911(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, cable television system operators are permitted, if the information is not otherwise available, to request certain information from competing service providers in order to establish the presence of effective competition. Here, based on the unique circumstances of this case, including not only that some information has been provided, but in particular the absence of any information that the presence or absence of competition is significantly in issue or that additional refinement of the data provided would be of decisional consequence with respect to the matters referenced in Section 76.911(a)(1), we conclude that Valley's response is not unreasonable and complies with the Commission's rules. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Steve Broeckaert at (202) 416-0974. Sincerely, Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau