WPCT 2MB%RK Z3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN <3|n I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 28a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2jFa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2!f3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2&Q!eU%%:&PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:)%)&*'9+a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf%P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf&[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf'f  21(*,),*-+/a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf(q Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font)11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#toc 1toc 1*` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 2toc 2+` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2:,2-:4.X6/v8toc 3toc 3,` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4-` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5.` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#toc 6toc 6/` hp x (#44` hp x (#2A0v:1<;2Z=3x?toc 7toc 70 toc 8toc 81` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 92` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 13` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2G4A5C6F7Findex 2index 24` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa5` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption6;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption711#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2M8G9tHKIKKKendnote referenceendnote reference844#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference94#XP\  P6QXP#"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""that its system serving the City of Inverness is subject to effective competition because its  xfranchise area is: (1) served by itself and Telesat Cablevision, Inc. ("Telesat"), an unaffiliated  xcable operator, each of which offers comparable programming to at least 50% of the households  x.in Inverness, and (2) the number of households subscribing to Time Warner, the smaller cable  X4-operator, exceeds 15% of the households in the franchise area.4 } yO- xԍTime Warner also argues that the 50% threshold contained in the first prong of the competing provider test is satisfied by the presence of direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") service.  X- ` Bx4.` ` Time Warner submits 1990 Census information contained in Florida Municipal  xProfiles demonstrating that there are 3,099 housing units and 2,674 households (that is, occupied  X- xhousing units) in Inverness.#"H } yO$- xZԍTime Warner Petition, Exhibit H. As the Commission has stated, "we presume that Congress did not intend  xw"households" to have a different meaning than in the 1990 Census that would include vacant units." Implementation  yOa&- x/of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Third Order on  {O)'- xReconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4324 (1994) ("Third Recon. Order"). The count of "households" in the 1990")',-(-(V'"  {O- xiCensus reflects only occupied housing units. See Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population, CP11B, Appendix B at B8.# Time Warner submits a computer printout with sufficient"",-(-(ZZr"  xinformation demonstrating that its system offers service to 2,729 housing units, and provides  X- x=service to 1,159 households in Inverness.H"} yO-ԍTime Warner Petition, Exhibit I.H Time Warner submits a copy of its channel lineup  x\which demonstrates that it provides 55 channels of programming, including at least 43 non X-broadcast channels.H } yO -ԍTime Warner Petition, Exhibit G.H  X- ` x5.` ` With respect to Telesat, Time Warner provides a copy of a letter from Telesat's  xDistrict Manager stating that Telesat offers service to 3,445 housing units, and provides service  X_- xto 1,829 households in Inverness.I _B} yOR- xԍTime Warner Petition, Exhibit B (letter dated June 5, 1996 from Ronald Torre, District Manager Telesat to  xJKevin M. Hyman Vice President & General Manager Time Warner). Time Warner states that Telesat passes 3,445  xhousing units, yet the 1990 Census data filed by Time Warner acknowledges only 3,099 total housing units and 2,674  {O- xoccupied housing units in Inverness. Citing the Cable Services Bureau's decision in Falcon Telecable, Time Warner  xasserts that because the Census data is for 1990, the discrepancy may reasonably be attributed to housing growth in  {O<- x[Inverness. Id. at 56; see Falcon Telecable, 10 FCC Rcd 1654 (1995). We agree with Time Warner that the  xkdiscrepancy is likely due to housing growth in the intervening years since publication of the 1990 Census.  xAccordingly, Time Warner's Telesat data is accepted for purposes of calculating the number of households passed  xin the franchise area. Nonetheless, for the sake of consistency in our effective competition orders, we will rely upon the Census data for the total number of housing units and households in the City of Inverness.I Time Warner also submits a copy of Telesat's channel line xup which demonstrates that Telesat provides 60 channels of programming, including at least 40  X1-nonbroadcast channels.H 1} yO-ԍTime Warner Petition, Exhibit F.H  X - xB.` ` Analysis  X - ` x6.` ` In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not  X - xto be subject to effective competition.? n} yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906. ? The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the  xjpresumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition,  X- xas defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area.D } yO?"-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.911(b)(1). D Time Warner has met this burden.  XK- ` x7.` ` The first prong of the competing provider test requires that the franchise area be  xLserved by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video program distributors ("MVPD"), each of  xwhich offers comparable programming to at least 50% of the households in the franchise area. " ,-(-(ZZ)"  xTime Warner's evidence indicates that there are 2,674 households in its Inverness franchise area.  xTo satisfy the first prong of the competing provider test, Time Warner must establish that its  x<system, and that of Telesat, offers service to at least 1,337 households in Inverness (50% of 2,674  xhouseholds). Time Warner provides evidence that its system offers service to 2,729 housing  xunits. After reducing this number by the franchise area vacancy rate of 13.7%, we find that Time  xWarner offers service to approximately 2,355, or 88.1% of the total households in Inverness. In  x[addition, Time Warner provides evidence that Telesat's system offers service to 3,445 housing  xMunits. After reducing this number by the franchise area vacancy rate of 13.7%, we find that  x]Telesat offers service to approximately 2,973 households significantly above the 1,337  xxhouseholds necessary to establish that Telesat offers service to at least 50% of the households in the franchise area.  X - ` #x8.` ` With respect to the second part of the first prong of the competing provider test,  xprogramming comparability, we find that the programming of Time Warner and Telesat are  X - xcomparable. } yO7- xhԍCompeting multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPD") must offer comparable video programming  {O- xto households in the franchise area. See Communications Act 623(l)(B)(i), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(B)(i); 47 C.F.R.  x76.905(b)(2). As the Commission has stated previously, in order to provide "comparable" video programming, a  {O- xMVPD must provide at least 12 channels of video programming, including at least one nonbroadcast channel. See  {O[-Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5667. We note that each provider offers at least 12 channels of video programming,  xincluding at least one nonbroadcast channel. This satisfies the Commission's programming comparability criterion.  Xb- ` Ax9.` ` With regard to the second prong of the competing provider effective competition  xtest, we find that the evidence shows that more than 15% of the households in the franchise area  X4- x-subscribe to multichannel video programming other than from Telesat, the largest MVPD.4~} yOc- x-ԍAs Telesat serves 1,829 subscribers and Time Warner serves 1,159 subscribers, it is clear that Telesat is the larger of the two competitors. Here,  xLTime Warner has submitted sufficient evidence that it serves 1,159 of the 2,674 households, or 43.3% of the households in the franchise area.  X- ` x10.` ` As Time Warner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that its cable  xsystem serving the City of Inverness is subject to competing provider effective competition, its petition is granted. ",-(-(ZZ"  X- III.xORDERING CLAUSES  X- ` x11.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for change in regulatory status  x{filed by Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner  X- x|Communications relating to its cable system serving the City of Inverness, Florida IS  X-GRANTED.  X_- ` x12.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.321 of  XH-the Commission's rules.<H} yO -ԍ47 C.F.R. 0.321.< x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Meredith J. Jones x` `  hh@Chief, Cable Services Bureau