WPCi 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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2KiKKKJ"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^'-5CCph---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#--------C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCQe0PP0OooKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPC"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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72C!K Kv] p "i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>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""83"2U3eY77Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:)>*?a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf'f  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 (#2zJ+B, D->F.\Htoc 2toc 2+` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 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 (#2|Q/J0vL1@M2^Otoc 6toc 6/` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 70 toc 8toc 81` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 92` hp x (#44` hp x (#2X3Q4S5U6Xindex 1index 13` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 24` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa5` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption6;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2O]7X8Y9xZ K[_Equation Caption_Equation Caption711#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference844#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference94#XP\  P6QXP#"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2aZ]Iiy.X80,X\  P6G;Pj7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPk7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xm2a=5,&a\  P6G;&Pl2e=5,&e4  pG;&na$G,',G\  P6G;Py.\80,T\4  pG;H5!,,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X\0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&Xy.\80, {\4  pG;0000تֽG}oy:`S b! jofJW"3!. kWDD6Wgbv{<@DDzE!n14 4GM0d 2\b/^meiiy.X80,X\  P6G;P j7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPk7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xm2a=5,&a\  P6G;&Pl2e=5,&e4  pG;&na$G,',G\  P6G;Poy.\80,T\4  pG;pP:% ,J:\  P6G;JPqH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;Xiy.X80,X\  P6G;P j7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPk7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xm2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P l2e=5,&e4  pG;&na$G,',G\  P6G;Poy.\80,T\4  pG;pP:% ,J:\  P6G;JPqH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\r{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X             S- X   w S- #Xj\  P6G;9XP# #&a\  P6G;&P#Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 971661 #Xj\  P6G;9XP#у  yxdddy wQl aE#G\  P6G;P#Q#&a\  P6G;&P#v3 #X\  P6G;P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 #&a\  P6G;&P#у  S@-In the Matter of:R)hCSR 5016E  S-R)h  S-United Cable Television Corp. of MichiganR)hLincoln Park, MI  S-d/b/a TCI Cablevision of Woodhaven, Inc.R)hCUID No. MI0432   xx 0(#(#XR) Petition for Determination ofR) Effective CompetitionR)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  S -x Adopted: August 1, 1997hh @ hppReleased: August 4, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  S- I.xINTRODUCTION  S- ` x1.` ` United Cable Television Corporation of Michigan d/b/a TCI Cablevision of Woodhaven,  x[Inc. ("TCI") has filed a Petition for Determination of Effective Competition asserting that it is subject to  xeffective competition in Lincoln Park, MI ("Lincoln Park") because of the presence of Ameritech New Media's cable service in that City. This petition is unopposed.  S- ` 3x2.` ` Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications  xAct") allows franchising authorities to become certified to regulate basic cable service rates of cable  S- xoperators which are not subject to effective competition.b yO-ԍCommunications Act 623(a)(4), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(4).b For purposes of the initial request for  xkcertification, local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that cable operators within their  SX- xjurisdiction are not subject to effective competition unless they have actual knowledge to the contrary.OXX yOP-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906, 76.910(b)(4).O  xCertification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing unless the Commission finds that the  S- xauthority does not meet the statutory certification requirements. {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). In Implementation of Cable Act Reform  S- xNProvisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Cable Act Reform Order"),Ez yO!-ԍ11 FCC Rcd 5937, 5944 (1996).E the Commission  x?instructed cable operators believing themselves subject to local exchange carrier ("LEC") effective  xcompetition under Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act to file a petition for determination of  Sl- xeffective competition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules.;l  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:"D,((II"Ԍ ` pԙXxX` ` a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming  ` p distributor using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video  ` pprogramming services directly to subscribers by any means (other than directto ` pThome satellite services) in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator  ` pwhich is providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if the video  ` pFprogramming services so offered in that area are comparable to the video  S-programming services provided by the unaffiliated cable operator in that area.h yOx-ԍCommunications Act 623(l)(1)(D), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(D).h `  S- II.xTHE PLEADINGS  Sp- ` x3.` ` TCI asserts that it is subject to LEC effective competition in its Lincoln Park, Michigan  xfranchise area. With regard to the LEC affiliation requirement, TCI asserts that Ameritech New Media  xj("Ameritech") is a competing franchised cable operator wholly owned by Ameritech Corporation, a local  S -exchange carrier serving customers in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.{ X yO-ԍThe City of Lincoln Park awarded a cable franchise to Ameritech on July 26, 1996. {  S - ` #x4.` ` With regard to the requirement that the LEC competitor offer(  yO0- xЍIn 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  yO- xCable Act would apply to the LEC test. 11 FCC Rcd at 5942. 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  ` 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 service  xin the unaffiliated cable operator's franchise area, TCI asserts that Ameritech has nearly completed its  SX- xoverbuild X yO- xiЍTCI states that Ameritech still needs to wire several MDUs in the franchise area. TCI adds that Ameritech's franchise agreement requires it to offer service to all residents of Lincoln Park by July 26, 1999. in Lincoln Park and now is providing service to at least 6,400 area residents. TCI states that  x=Ameritech has heavily marketed the availability of its cable service through local media and other means.  xTCI asserts there are no regulatory, technical, or other impediments to households taking service from Ameritech. XxX` ` `  S- ` x5.` ` TCI also asserts that Ameritech offers comparable programming X"0 yO`%- xЍThe 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"& ,_(_('"  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 12 (quoting 1996 Act Conference Report, S. Rep. 104230 at 170 (Feb. 1, 1996)). to Lincoln Park" ,_(_(II"  xLsubscribers. Specifically, TCI provides Ameritech's channel lineup which demonstrates that Ameritech  x?offers 70 channels, 9 of which are local television broadcasting signals. TCI offers 76 channels of programming in Lincoln Park.  S`- ` x6.` ` Finally, TCI states that it has made several pricing and marketing changes in response to  xincreased competition from Ameritech. TCI notes that it recently: (1) reduced rates for basic service from  x$11.24 to $9.91; (2) reduced its installation window to within 24 hours of being called by a new customer;  x(3) increased system bandwidth to 750 MHz; (4) added channels to the basic and CPS tiers; and (5)  xmoved the Disney Channel from premium to basic. TCI adds that it is contemplating additional actions to win customers back from Ameritech.  SH - III.xANALYSIS  S - ` x7.` ` In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be  S - xsubject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act.=  yO"-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906.= The cable operator bears the  xburden of rebutting the presumption that such effective competition does not exist and so must provide  xNevidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the  SX-Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area.M XB yO:-Ѝ47 C.F.R. 76.911(b)(1).M TCI has met this burden.  S- ` Ax8.` ` With regard to the first part of the LEC effective competition test, which requires that the  xalleged competitive service be provided by a LEC or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming  xMdistributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate), we find that TCI has provided  xMsufficient evidence demonstrating that Ameritech New Media is an MVPD wholly owned by a LEC.  Sh- xAmeritech is a LEC as defined by the Communications Act,d @h yO-ЍThe 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).d and Ameritech New Media meets the  xCommission's definition of MVPD. Therefore, we find that TCI satisfies the affiliation prong of the LEC effective competition test. TCI is unaffiliated with both Ameritech New Media and Ameritech.  S- ` Qx9.` ` We also find that TCI has submitted sufficient evidence to show that the programming  xof Ameritech is comparable to the programming which it provides. The channel information for  xAmeritech submitted by TCI establishes that Ameritech offers more than 70 channels of programming,"x ,_(_(II" including 9 local broadcast channels. This satisfies the programming comparability criterion.  S- ` x10.` ` In addition, we find that based on the information before us, Ameritech is offering service  xin TCI's franchise area sufficient to demonstrate the presence of effective competition. Ameritech's  xoverbuild of TCI's system is almost complete in the City of Lincoln Park and Ameritech is now  xcompeting for customers with TCI in the area at issue. We find that Ameritech's rapid construction  xlprogress, and its undisputed recruitment of 6,400 subscribers in the franchise area, are indicia that Ameritech is physically able to offer service in the cable community.  S- ` x11.` ` We note that Ameritech's extensive marketing efforts and the wide press coverage of  xAmeritech's construction activity in the local media ensure that potential subscribers are reasonably aware  xof the availability of Ameritech's service. Generally, subscribers in Lincoln Park are able to receive  xAmeritech's cable service for only a minimal additional investment and without encountering regulatory  xor technical obstacles. We also note that TCI has lowered its rates, added new channels, and upgraded  x/its cable plant, all for the benefit of its subscribers. 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.  S0- IV.xORDERING CLAUSES  S-  S- ` %x12.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Determination of Effective  x0Competition filed by United Cable Television Corporation of Michigan d/b/a TCI Cablevision of  S- xWoodhaven, Inc., challenging the certification of the City of Lincoln Park, in Lincoln Park, Michigan IS  Sh-GRANTED.  S- ` mx13.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of the City of Lincoln Park, Michigan  S-to regulate the basic cable rates of TCI in Lincoln Park, Michigan IS REVOKED .  S- ` x14.` ` This action is taken pursuant to the interim rules adopted in Implementation of Cable  Sz- x[Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and is without prejudice to any further action  xtaken by the Commission in adopting final rules pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contained  S,-therein.i, {O-ԍCable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 59385945, 59615964.i  S- ` x15.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the  S-Commission's rules, as amended.;Z yO -ԍ47 C.F.R 0.321.; x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau