WPC] 2MB%RK<3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"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/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtoc 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 (#toc 7toc 70 2G1?2A3C4Etoc 8toc 81` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 92` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 13` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 24` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2L51H6OJ7K8Ktoatoa5` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption6;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption711#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference844#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2,T9LKKMKOKQfootnote referencefootnote reference94#XP\  P6QXP#"i~'^#)0<8HH"&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""d/b/a Charter Communications ("Charter"),p yO- xiԍEffective August 31, 1995, Charter Communications Entertainment II, L.P. purchased the assets of Cencom Cable Television, Inc. Charter now holds the franchises to provide cable service in the abovecaptioned communities. seeks a determination that Charter is subject to  xeffective competition in the franchise areas of the City of Riverside (South), the City of Riverside  x(North), Riverside County, and the City of Norco, California (the "Communities") because Cross  XQ- xmCountry Wireless, Inc. ("Cross Country")Q p yO"-ԍCross Country is a provider of multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS") or wireless cable service. provides competing service in each of the  xCommunities. The Commission gave public notice seeking comment on Charter's petition.  xPacific Telesis Enterprises ("PTE") filed comments in the proceeding and the City of Norco filed  X -an opposition to Charter's petition. Charter filed a reply.l p yOm!-ԍCharter was granted a one week extension in order to file its reply.l  X- ` dx2.` ` Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended  x("Communications Act"), allows franchising authorities to become certified to regulate basic cable  X- xxservice rates of cable operators that are not subject to effective competition.b@p yO&-ԍCommunications Act 623(a)(4), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(4).b For purposes of the  xinitial request for certification, local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that cable  xKoperators within their jurisdiction are not subject to effective competition unless they have actual" ,))ZZ"  X- x<knowledge to the contrary.O yOy-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906, 76.910(b)(4).O Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing unless  X- xthe Commission finds that the authority does not meet the statutory certification requirements.X {O-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.910(e); 47 C.F.R. 76.910(b); see also Communications Act 623(a)(4), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(4).  X- xIn Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  X- xj("Cable Act Reform Order"),h yOX-ԍOrder and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996).h the Commission instructed cable operators believing themselves  X- xsubject to local exchange carrier ("LEC")z yO - xyԍThe Communications Act defines the term "local exchange carrier" as "any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access." Communications Act 3(26), 47 U.S.C. 153(26).  effective competition under Section 623(l)(1)(D) of  xthe Communications Act to file a petition for determination of effective competition pursuant to  Xz- x{Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules.; z yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.7.; Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition where:  ` pXxX` ` a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any multichannel video  ` pprogramming distributor using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate)  ` pqoffers video programming services directly to subscribers by any means  ` p(other than directtohome satellite services) in the franchise area of an  ` punaffiliated cable operator which is providing cable service in that  ` p&franchise area, but only if the video programming services so offered in  ` pthat area are comparable to the video programming services provided by  X-the unaffiliated cable operator in that area.h b  yO-ԍCommunications Act 623(l)(1)(D), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(D).h `  xSuccessful LEC effective competition petitions will exempt a cable operator from rate regulation  xas of February 8, 1996, the enactment date of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996  X8-Act").O 8  {O-ԍCable Act Reform Order at 5944. O  "=   X - "=  II.xTHE PLEADINGS  X- `  x3.` ` Charter asserts that it is subject to LEC effective competition in the Communities. X  yO$- xԍCharter states that it is the franchised cable operator serving approximately 47,000 subscribers in the City of  xRiverside, portions of the County of Riverside, and the City of Norco, California. Charter notes that it provides cable service to a small segment of Riverside County immediately surrounding the City of Riverside.   X- x.With regard to the LEC affiliation requirement, Charter states that in April 1995, Pacific Telesis" ,-(-(ZZ"  xGroup ("PTG"), announced through its Pacific Telesis Enterprises ("PTE") subsidiary, that it  X- x would acquire Cross Country.-  {Ob- xԍCharter Petition, Exhibit B (Wall Street Journal, "PacTel to Buy Tiny Wireless Cable Firm For $120 Million  {O,-to Speed Video Project," April 18, 1995; Broadcasting & Cable, "The Wireless System that Could," May 1, 1995).- Charter states that PTE completed its acquisition of Cross  X- xCountry in July 1995.|$ {O- x-ԍCharter Petition, Exhibit C (Business Wire, "Pacific Telesis Becomes Nation's First Telco to offer Wireless  xCable Television" July 25, 1996). According to Charter, Cross Country's two MMDS licenses were transferred to  {O9- xCC Wireless, Inc. as part of a pro forma transfer on July 20, 1995. Charter Petition, Exhibit D. Charter further states  yO - xYthat on June 10, 1996, CC Wireless and PTE consummated the transfer of the two MMDS licenses to PTE. Charter  x,Petition, Exhibit E. Charter states that it presumes that Cross Country, as controlled by PTE, utilized the capacity  x;of CC Wireless' two MMDS channels from July 1995 through June 10, 1996 pursuant to a lease and/or management agreement. Charter Petition at 3, n.7.  Charter also notes that, in March 1996, PTE won the multipoint  xxdistribution service ("MDS") basic trading areas ("BTA") authorization for the Los Angeles BTA,  X- xwhich encompasses the Riverside area.h  yO- xԍCharter Petition at 3, n.8 (FCC Public Notice, "Winning Bidders in the Auction of Authorization to provide  {O-Multipoint Distribution Service in 493 Basic Trading Areas," (released March 29, 1996)).   Charter asserts that Cross Country and PTE are clearly  x LEC affiliates because PTE is a whollyowned first tier subsidiary of PTG, one of the seven  Xv- xRegional Bell Holding Companies established after the 1984 divestiture of AT&T.v  {O- xLԍCharter Petition, Exhibit I (PTE FCC Form 430 [Licensee Qualification Report] filed as part of the CC Wireless/PTE MDS license transfer of control application). Charter also  xnotes that Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell, each a LEC, are subsidiaries of PTG and therefore  XH-affiliated with PTE and Cross Country.  X - ` nx4.` ` With regard to the requirement that the LEC competitor offer,   yO- xԍIn implementing the LEC effective competition test on an interim basis, the Commission determined that its  xpreexisting definition of the term "offer" as used in the three effective competition definitions set forth in the 1992  {Ow- xCable Act would apply to the LEC test. Cable Act Reform Order at 5941. The Commission previously determined that service of a multichannel video programming distributor will be deemed offered:  Xx(1) When the multichannel video programming distributor is physically able to deliver service to  ~potential subscribers, with the addition of no or only minimal additional investment by the  distributor, in order for an individual subscriber to receive service; and (2) When no regulatory,  mtechnical or other impediments to households taking service exist, and potential subscribers in the  franchise area are reasonably aware that they may purchase the services of the multichannel video programming distributor.   {OI"-47 C.F.R. 76.905(e).  video programming  x[service in the unaffiliated cable operator's franchise area, Charter asserts that Cross Country is  xphysically able to offer service to subscribers in the Communities. Charter states that Cross" ,-(-(ZZ" "  X- xCountry's estimated 35mile frequency interference zoneQZ {Oy- xZԍSee Cable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 5942 (requesting that petitioners submit information regarding  xYa MMDS competitor's 35mile frequency interference radius); 47 C.F.R. 21.902(d) (Commission's rules establishing 35mile frequency interference zone).Q completely envelops and extends well  X- xbeyond the City and County of Riverside, the City of Norco, and Charter's service area.$ yO- xkԍCross Country's transmitter is located atop Box Springs Mountain in Riverside. Based on the tower's  {OL- xcoordinates, Charter submitted a map showing Cross Country's estimated 35mile protected service area. See Charter  {O- xPetition, Exhibit J. In addition, Charter notes that Cross Country's transmitter site is located 9.7 miles from Charter's headend.  xKCharter further states that the best evidence that Cross Country is physically able to offer service  X- xis the fact that 43,000 subscribers are served from Cross Country's transmitter site.M {OB - xYԍCharter cites a portion of an "Effective Competition Report" from SkyTrendsMedia Business Corp. and notes  yO - xthat the Cross Country subscriber count was 43,259 as of July 1, 1996. According to Charter, however, SkyTrends  yO - xlists all 43,259 of the subscribers as being located in the 92507 zip code. Charter states that because SkyTrends  xcannot break down all Cross Country subscribers by individual zip code, the total subscriber count was reported  yOd- xwithin a single zip code. Charter does not explain why SkyTrends is unable to provide Cross Country subscriber  {O,-information according to the actual subscriber zip codes.   M In addition,  xCharter states that the Commission has determined in a prior proceeding that "Riverside is in  xCross Country's interferencefree contour zone," and that "potential subscribers are reasonably  Xv- xaware that Cross Country's service is available to them." vR  {Oy- xZԍCharter Petition at 8 (quoting Cencom Cable Television, Inc., DA 96488 at 11 (released April 9, 1996)).  {OC- xLThe Commission's decision in Cencom involved a subscriber rate complaint against Charter regarding service  {O - x-provided under the cable programming service tier ("CPST") in the City of Riverside, California. Cencom at 1.  xCharter defended against the CPST rate complaint arguing that it was subject to competing provider effective  {O- xcompetition in the City of Riverside pursuant to Section 76.905(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. Id. at 5; see 47  xC.F.R. 76.905(b)(2) (competing provider test). In evaluating Charter's claim, the Commission concluded that Cross  {O1- xCountry offered comparable programming to at least 50% of the City of Riverside. Cencom, at 11. However, the  xZCommission denied Charter's competing provider claim because Charter was unable to establish that at least 15%  xKof the households in the City of Riverside subscribed to service other than that of the largest multichannel video  {O- xprogramming distributor serving the City of Riverside, Charter. Id. at 13. In this regard, the Commission  xdetermined that Cross Country provided service to 8,059 subscribers, or 10.7% of the households in the City of  {O- xRiverside. Id. at 11. Moreover, the Commission found that Cross Country had a combined subscriber base in the  {O- xYCity and County of Riverside of 18,500. Id. The Cencom decision relates only to Cross Country's operations in the City of Riverside, not Riverside County or the City of Norco. Thus, Charter asserts that the  xCommission has already found that Cross Country offers service in the City of Riverside, free  xof any regulatory or technical impediments and potential subscribers are reasonably aware that they may purchase the service of Cross Country.  X - ` Qx5.` ` Charter also asserts that Cross Country offers comparable programming to the  X - xCommunities' subscribers.zX"  yO%- xԍThe Commission observed that Congress specified a different definition of comparable programming for the  x LEC effective competition test from that adopted for the first three effective competition tests enacted as part of the  x1992 Cable Act. Although soliciting comment as to the revised definition, the Commission on an interim basis"G',-(-(j'"  xydetermined that it will apply this new comparable programming standard which "includes access to at least 12  xchannels of programming, at least some of which are television broadcasting signals" to the LEC effective  {O - xcompetition test. See Cable Act Reform Order at 5942 (quoting 1996 Act Conference Report, S. Rep. 104230 at 170 (Feb. 1, 1996)).z Charter notes that the Commission has previously determined that" ,-(-(ZZ "  X- xCross Country offers comparable multichannel video programming. {Oc- xԍCencom at 12.  We note that the comparable programming standard applied by the Commission to Cross  {O-- xCountry's channel lineup in the Cencom case (at least 12 channels of video programming, including at least one non xbroadcast channel) is not the same standard which Congress directed the Commission to apply to LEC effective  xcompetition petitions (at least 12 channels of video programming, at least some of which are television broadcasting  {O -signals). See supra n.22.  Charter submits Cross  x>Country's channel lineup which demonstrates that Cross Country provides 33 channels of  x\programming, nine of which are local television broadcasting signals, with a variety of nonbroadcast tier and premium programming services.  X- ` x6.` ` PTE, the owner of Cross Country, filed comments in this proceeding stating that  x-PTE does not oppose a Commission finding that Charter is subject to effective competition in the  xCommunities provided that the Commission requires Charter to certify in writing that it holds no  xexclusive video programming agreements which would prevent competitors from having access  X1- xto the same programming.:1h  yOJ-ԍPTE Comments at 1.: PTE argues that a critical component of finding that a LEC, or its  xaffiliate, offers comparable programming is ensuring that the LEC has the same access to the  X -programming being offered by the petitioning cable operator.7  {O-ԍId. at 2.7  X - ` x7.` ` The City of Norco opposes Charter's petition, arguing that Cross Country does not  X - xhave the ability to serve Norco.>  yO-ԍNorco Opposition at 1.> According to the City of Norco, the only cable operator with  xythe ability to serve the city with video programming services is Charter. In this regard, the City  x-of Norco states that Cross Country has indicated to Norco that Cross Country does not have the  Xy- xability to serve Norco.1y {OD-ԍId.1 The City of Norco, therefore, requests that Charter's petition be denied  x!or amended to exclude the City of Norco until such time as effective competition can be demonstrated.  X- ` Bx8.` ` In its reply, Charter argues that PTE's comments regarding program access are  xirrelevant to the effective competition analysis in this proceeding. Charter states that if PTE has  X- xa legitimate program access concern with regard to Charter's operations, PTE should file a  X- x<program access complaint with the Commission.; yO5'-ԍCharter Reply at 2.; With regard to the City of Norco's opposition,"<,-(-(ZZ"  xCharter replies that it is in the process of confirming Cross Country's active subscriber count in  X- xthe city.1 {Ob-ԍId.1 Charter contends, however, that in June 1993, Cross Country had at least one active  X-subscriber in Norco.ZZ {O- xԍCharter Reply, Exhibit A (letter from Cross Country noting one active subscriber in the zip code area 91760).  x,Charter stated that it intends to contact Cross Country for a subscriber verification regarding the City of Norco and requests leave to supplement its reply upon receipt of this information.   X- III .x ANALYSIS  Xv- `  x9.` ` In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not  X_- xto be subject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act.=_| yO -ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906.= The cable  xoperator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that such effective competition, as defined  X1- xjby Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area.C 1  yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.911(b)(1).C Charter has met this burden with regard to the City of Riverside and Riverside County.  X - ` 2x10.` ` With regard to the first part of the LEC effective competition test, which requires  xthat the alleged competitive service be provided by a LEC or its affiliate (or any multichannel  X - xvideo programming distributor ("MVPD")A!  yO - x/ԍThe Commission's rules define a MVPD as "an entity such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a  xmultichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, a television receiveonly satellite  xprogram distributor, a video dialtone service provider, or a satellite master antenna television service provider that  xmakes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming." 47 C.F.R. 76.905(d). A using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate), we  x<find that Charter has provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that Cross Country is a wholly xowned subsidiary of PTE, which is a whollyowned subsidiary of PTG, which also owns and  xcontrols Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell, each of which are unquestionably LECs. Therefore, we  xfind that Charter satisfies the affiliation prong of the LEC effective competition test. Additionally, we find that Charter is unaffiliated with Cross Country, PTE, or PTG.  X- ` x11.` ` We also find that Charter has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that  X- xCross Country provides comparable programming."L  {O#-ԍSee supra n.22 (discussing the Commission's comparable programming standard for LEC effective competition). Cross Country offers 33 channels of  xprogramming, including at least nine local broadcast channels, which satisfies the Commission's  xprogramming comparability criteria. PTE expansively interprets the comparable programming  xrequirement of the LEC effective competition test to require that the LEC competitor have the  xsame access to the programming offered by the petitioning cable operator. In enacting the 1996"",-(-(ZZ"  xxAct, Congress specified the comparable programming standard which the Commission must apply  x/to LEC effective competition petitions. This standard does not include equal access to the  X-programming of a LEC effective competition petitioner.q#Z {OK- xԍSee Cable Act Reform Order at 5942 (quoting 1996 Act Conference Report, S. Rep. 104230 at 170 (Feb. 1,  x1996)). We note that PTE may file a program access complaint with the Commission should PTE determine that it has a legitimate program access concern with regard to Charter's operations.q  X- ` ox12.` ` The LEC effective competition test requires that competitive service be offered  xydirectly to subscribers in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator which is providing  xcable service in that franchise area. In enacting the LEC effective competition test, Congress  x=indicated that the Commission should apply its preexisting definition of the term "offer" to the LEC effective competition test. This definition provides that service is offered:  QXx(1) When the multichannel video programming distributor is physically able to  odeliver service to potential subscribers, with the addition of no or only minimal  additional investment by the distributor, in order for an individual subscriber to  oreceive service; and (2) When no regulatory, technical or other impediments to  households taking service exist, and potential subscribers in the franchise area are  reasonably aware that they may purchase the services of the multichannel video  X-programming distributor.$ {O+- xhԍ47 C.F.R. 76.905(e); see Cable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 5941 (citing Telecommunications Act 1996 Conference Report, S. Rep. 104230 at 170 (Feb. 1, 1996) ("Conference Report") ).   Xb- ` }x13.` ` Based on the information before us, we find that Cross Country is offering service  xin the City of Riverside and Riverside County. Charter has submitted evidence that Cross  xCountry's central transmitter is in place and physically able to offer service, and in fact serves  xapproximately 43,000 subscribers from its Riverside transmitter site, including 8,059 subscribers  xjin the City of Riverside and 18,500 combined subscribers in the City of Riverside and Riverside  xCounty. In order to provide service, Cross Country need only install an MMDS antenna on, or  xnear, a subscriber's home. In addition, a lineofsight/shadow plot map on file with the  xCommission indicates that both the City and significant portions of the County (particularly the  x{areas immediately surrounding the City of Riverside in which Charter's Riverside County  X- xfacilities are located) lie within Cross Country's lineofsight area.%D yO - xZԍThis is consistent with the Commission's prior finding that the City of Riverside lies within Cross Country's  {OP!-interference free contour. Cencom, at 11. These facts convince us that  xKCross Country's service is physically available in the City of Riverside and Riverside County with  Xe-the addition of no, or only minimal, additional investment.w&Ze {O$- xjԍSee Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 565758 ("The installation by the MMDS operator of a special subscriber  xxantenna capable of receiving microwave signals represents an individual additional investment by the operator, the antenna being particular to that household's reception of the service.").w "N &,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x14.` ` We likewise conclude that no regulatory, technical or other impediments prevent  xxpotential subscribers from receiving Cross Country's service, and potential subscribers in the City  xof Riverside and Riverside County are reasonably aware that they may receive Cross Country's  X- x"service. The Commission has previously determined that Cross Country's extensive  xsubscribership combined with newspaper articles and advertisements regarding Cross Country's  xoperations make potential subscribers reasonably aware that Cross Country's service is available  Xv- xyto them.?'v {O-ԍCencom at 11.? The fact that Cross Country is licensed by the Commission to operate as an MMDS  xoperator and the fact that Cross Country has over 43,000 subscribers in its service area, coupled  xwith the lack of evidence regarding any impediments to potential City of Riverside and Riverside  xLCounty subscribers taking service, persuade us that there are no regulatory, technical or other impediments to households in the City and County taking service.  X - ` }x15.` ` With regard to the City of Norco, however, Charter has not established that Cross  xCountry "offers" service to subscribers in Norco as contemplated by the statute. In support of  xyits position, Charter asserts that Cross Country serves one subscriber in Norco. Charter filed a  x!supplement to its showing in April, 1997, which only confirmed that there was only one  xsubscriber in Norco. With the exception of this one subscriber, there is no evidence to suggest  xithat Cross Country is physically able to deliver service to potential subscribers with no additional  x=or minimal investment. A lineofsight/shadow plot map on file with the Commission indicates  xjthat the City of Norco is currently impeded from receiving service from Cross Country because  xthe map indicates that the City is "shadowed," meaning that it would have difficulty receiving  xCross Country's signal because it is blocked by terrain and does not have lineofsight with the  xtransmitter. In addition, we have no evidence that the terrain problem could be resolved by the  xuse of a signal booster/repeater. Further, Norco asserts that Cross Country has indicated to the  xCity that the wireless company does not have the ability to serve Norco. In addition to evidence  xof technical impediments, there is nothing in the record to show that subscribers in the area are  xreasonably aware that they may purchase Cross Country's services. For example, we have no  xevidence that Cross Country has engaged in any marketing efforts to attract subscribers in Norco.  xzThus, in considering all of the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that service is being offered by Cross Country in the City of Norco.  XN- "=   X7- "=  IV.xORDERING CLAUSES  X - `  x16.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Determination of Effective  X- xCompetition filed by Charter Communications Entertainment II, L.P. IS GRANTED with respect  xto the City of Riverside (South), the City of Riverside (North), and Riverside County, California,  X -and in all other respects IS DENIED.  X"- ` 3 x17.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certifications of the City of Riverside  x(South), the City of Riverside (North), and Riverside County, California applicable to Charter  Xh$-Communications Entertainment II, L.P.'s basic cable service rates are REVOKED."h$Z',-(-(ZZF#"Ԍ X- ` ~ԙ x18.` ` This action is taken pursuant to the interim rules adopted in Implementation of  X- xiCable Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and is without prejudice to any  X- xifurther action taken by the Commission in adopting final rules pursuant to the Notice of Proposed  X-Rulemaking contained therein.p( {O8-ԍCable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 59385945, 59615964. p  X- ` ox19.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the  Xz-Commission's rules, as amended.<)zZ yO -ԍ47 C.F.R. 0.321.< x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau