WPC_ 2MB%RK<3|XTimes 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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNvPTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic27 XV K K I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)ҢTy.X80,X\  P6G;PU7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPV7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xa$G,',G\  P6G;Pd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/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"":':a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf%P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf&[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf'f  2A(;)<*g=+?a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf(q Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font)11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#toc 1toc 1*` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 2toc 2+` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2MJ,A-C.F//Htoc 3toc 3,` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4-` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5.` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#toc 6toc 6/` hp x (#44` hp x (#2OQ0vJ1J2M31Otoc 7toc 70 toc 8toc 81` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 92` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 13` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2;W4Q5S6U7Vindex 2index 24` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa5` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption6;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption711#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2\8mW9-XZXIendnote referenceendnote reference844#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference94#XP\  P6QXP#âTy.X80,X\  P6G;PU7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPV7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XWa$G,',G\  P6G;PXy.\80,T\4  pG;YW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\g{,W80,%?W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX6 n  & 2\G\_Ty.X80,X\  P6G;PU7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPV7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XWa$G,',G\  P6G;PXy.\80,T\4  pG;YW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPZH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XXQyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\ yO- X   ) X-w #Xj\  P6G;9XP# Federal Communications Commission`)(# DA 971117 ă  yxdddy )Qd aE#G\  P6G;P#QՊv3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X -#Xj\  P6G;9XP#In the Matter of:Th)ppCSR 4988E  X -Th)pp  X-Comcast Cablevision ofTh)ppSterling Heights, MI  X-Sterling Heights, Inc. andTh)ppCUID No. MI0637xx 0(#(#X  X-Th)  X-Comcast Cablevision of Taylor, Inc.@h)ppFraser, MI  X-Th)ppCUID No. MI0418  X -Petition for Determination ofTh)  Xh -Effective CompetitionTh)ppSouthgate, MI  XQ -Th)ppCUID No. MI0409  X: -Th)  X# -Th)ppGarden City, MI  X -Th)ppCUID No. MI1179 T  X-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  X- Adopted:` ` May 28, 1997hh@ h ppReleased: May 29, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X=- I.xINTRODUCTION  X- ` nx1.` ` Comcast Cablevision of Sterling Heights, Inc. and Comcast Cablevision of Taylor,  xInc. (hereinafter "Comcast") has filed a Petition for Determination of Effective Competition  xasserting that it is subject to effective competition in four Michigan communities, Sterling  x-Heights, Fraser, Southgate and Garden City (hereinafter "Communities") because of the presence  xjof Ameritech New Media's (hereinafter "Ameritech") cable service in those Communities. This petition is unopposed.  Xn- ` dx2.` ` Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended  xZ("Communications Act") allows franchising authorities to become certified to regulate basic cable  X@ - xservice rates of cable operators which are not subject to effective competition.b@ A yO"-ԍCommunications Act 623(a)(4), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(4).b For purposes of  x.the initial request for certification, local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that  xcable operators within their jurisdiction are not subject to effective competition unless they have  X"- xactual knowledge to the contrary.O"XA yO'-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906, 76.910(b)(4).O Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing"",p(p(ZZ ""  x?unless the Commission finds that the authority does not meet the statutory certification  X- xrequirements.18 {Ob-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). In Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act  X- x/of 1996 ("Cable Act Reform Order"),zZ18 yO-ԍOrder and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96154, 11 FCC Rcd 5937, 5944 (1996).z the Commission instructed cable operators believing  xthemselves subject to local exchange carrier ("LEC") effective competition under Section  x|623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act to file a petition for determination of effective  X- x\competition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules.;18 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 z18 yO-ԍCommunications Act 623(l)(1)(D), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(D).h `  X}- II.xTHE PLEADINGS  XO- ` x3.` ` Comcast asserts that it is subject to LEC effective competition in the four  xjcommunities. With regard to the LEC affiliation requirement, Comcast asserts that Ameritech is  xMa competing franchised cable operator wholly owned by the Ameritech Corporation, a local  xexchange carrier serving customers in five midwestern states including Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,  X-Michigan, and Wisconsin. 18 yO- xԍFranchises were awarded to the four cities on the following dates: Sterling Heights on September 17, 1996; Garden City on April 1, 1996; Fraser on November 9, 1995; and Southgate on December 13, 1995.  X- ` Px4.` ` With regard to the requirement that the LEC competitor offer?Bb 18 yO!- xԍIn implementing the LEC effective competition test on an interim basis, the Commission determined that its pre xexisting definition of the term "offer" as used in the three effective competition definitions set forth in the 1992  {Oh#- xCable Act would apply to the LEC test. Communications Act, 623(l), 47 U.S.C. 543(l); Cable Act Reform Order  x11 FCC Rcd at 5941. The Commission previously determined that service of a multichannel video programming distributor will be deemed offered:  ` pCXxX` ` (1) When the multichannel video programming distributor is physically able to deliver  ` p5service to potential subscribers, with the addition of no or only minimal additional"R',N(N('"  ` pinvestment by the distributor, in order for an individual subscriber to receive service; and  ` p(2) When no regulatory, technical or other impediments to households taking service exist,  ` pand potential subscribers in the franchise area are reasonably aware that they may purchase the services of the multichannel video programming distributor. ` 47 C.F.R. 76.905(e). ? video programming"@,N(N(ZZ"  xservice in the unaffiliated cable operator's franchise area, Comcast asserts that Ameritech has  xcompletely overbuilt Fraser, Southgate, and Garden City and is currently providing service to  xsubscribers throughout these areas. Ameritech has not completed its overbuild in Sterling Heights  X- xbut it has activated plant and is providing service to subscribers in that area.| @18 yO -ԍComcast notes that Ameritech has wired approximately 80% of Sterling Heights so far.| Comcast states that  xAmeritech currently has at least 150 subscribers in Fraser, 500 subscribers in Southgate, 1500  xNsubscribers in Garden City, and 100 subscribers in Sterling Heights. Comcast states that  xAmeritech has heavily marketed the availability of its cable service through the local media and  xhas initiated an extensive local promotion campaign. Comcast asserts there are no regulatory, technical, or other impediments to households taking service from Ameritech. XxX` ` `  X - ` x5.` ` Comcast also asserts that Ameritech offers comparable programming&  18 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. This new comparable programming standard requires access to at least 12 channels of programming,  yO- xZ"at least some of which are television broadcasting signals." The Commission has concluded, on an interim basis,  {O- x.that the broadcast signals must be local broadcast signals. See Cable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 5942 (quoting 1996 Act Conference Report, S. Rep. 104230 at 170 (Feb. 1, 1996)). & to  xsubscribers in the Communities. Specifically, Comcast provides Ameritech's channel lineup  x[which demonstrates that Ameritech offers 90 channels of programming, nine of which are local  x=television broadcasting signals. Comcast offers over 80 channels of programming on its cable systems serving Fraser, Southgate, Garden City, and Sterling Heights.  X- III.xANALYSIS  Xb- ` x7.` ` In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not  XK- xto be subject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act.= KJ 18 yOF -ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906.= The cable  xoperator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that such effective competition does not  xexist and so must provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined  X- xby Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area.C 18 yO$-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.911(b)(1).C Comcast has met this burden. "j ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x8.` ` 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  xzvideo programming distributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate), we  xfind that Comcast has provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that Ameritech New Media is  xan MVPD wholly owned by a LEC. Ameritech is a LEC as defined by the Communications  X- xAct,Z @18 yO-ԍThe Communications Act defines the term "local exchange carrier" as:  ` pXxX` ` any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange  ` paccess. Such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the  ` p3provision of a commercial mobile service under Section 332(c), except to the extent that the Commission finds that such service should be included in the definition of such term. ` Communications Act 3(26), 47 U.S.C. 153(26).Z and Ameritech meets the Commission's definition of MVPD. Therefore, we find that  x?Comcast satisfies the affiliation prong of the LEC effective competition test. Comcast is unaffiliated with both Ameritech New Media and Ameritech.  X1- ` 3x9.` ` We also find that Comcast has submitted sufficient evidence to show that the  xprogramming of Ameritech is comparable to the programming which it provides. The channel  xinformation for Ameritech submitted by Comcast establishes that Ameritech offers more than 80  xchannels of programming, including nine local broadcast channels. This satisfies the programming comparability criterion.  X - ` x10.` ` In addition, we find that Ameritech is offering service in Comcast's franchise areas  xsufficient to demonstrate the presence of effective competition. Comcast has provided  xxdocumentation showing that Ameritech is currently offering service. Comcast has stated that the  xyentire franchise areas of Fraser, Southgate, and Garden City have been overbuilt by Ameritech,  xand that Ameritech is near completion of its 100% overbuild of Comcast's system in Sterling  xHeights. We note that Ameritech's substantial marketing efforts and the extensive press coverage  xin the local media ensure that potential subscribers are reasonably aware of the availability of  x\Ameritech's service. Subscribers in Fraser, Southgate, Garden City, and substantial parts of  xSterling Heights are able to receive service for only a minimal additional investment and without  xregulatory, technical or other impediments. Consistent with Congressional intent in adopting  xSection 623(l)(1)(d) of the Communications Act, under the circumstances we find effective competition to be present.  X|- IV.xORDERING CLAUSES  Xe-  XN- ` x11.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Determination of Effective  xCompetition filed by Comcast Cablevision of Sterling Heights, Inc. and Comcast Cablevision of  xTaylor, challenging the certification of the cities of Fraser, Southgate, Garden City, and Sterling  X -Heights, all of Michigan, IS GRANTED. " ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x12.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certifications of the cities of Fraser,  x/Southgate, Garden City, and Sterling Heights, Michigan to regulate the basic cable rates of  X-Comcast in those communities ARE REVOKED .  X- ` ~x13.` ` 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  xifurther action taken by the Commission in adopting final rules pursuant to the Notice of Proposed  Xc-Rulemaking contained therein.ic18 {O-ԍCable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 59385945, 59615964.i  X5- ` ox14.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the  X -Commission's rules, as amended.; Z18 yO) -ԍ47 C.F.R 0.321.; x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau x "N x x x  X -