WPCSj 2MB%RK Z3|X Times 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+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\"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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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""%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>lBBn7"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\2\b[^eQj4y.X80,IX\  P6G;P 57jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP62a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P72e=5,D&e4  pG;&8a$G,',YG\  P6G;P9y.\80, {\4  pG;:7nC:,Xn4  pG;X;W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP<H5!,,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X4y.X80,IX\  P6G;P 57jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP 62a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P 72e=5,D&e4  pG;&8a$G,',YG\  P6G;P9y.\80, {\4  pG;:7nC:,Xn4  pG;X;W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP<H5!,,5\  P6G;,P\={,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X\>5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX?P:% ,1J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&X S- X   P^} S- #Xj\  P6G;+XP##&a\  P6G;0&P# Federal Communications Commission`}(#<DA 972340 ă  yxdddy PQ@ aE#G\  P6G;YP#Q#&a\  P6G;0&P#vK #X\  P6G;IP#Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO}"Washington, D.C. 20554 #&a\  P6G;0&P#у   S@-In the Matter of:j)CSR 5069E  S-j)  S-Time Warner Entertainmentj)Horry County, SC  S-Advance /Newhouse Partnershipj)CUID No. SC0080 d/b/a Time Warner Cablej) j) Petition for Special Reliefj)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER lU  S - Adopted: November 5, 1997hh, V ppReleased: November 10, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:   S- I.INTRODUCTION  S-  ~Ԋ1.` ` Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance /Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable   ("Time Warner") has filed a Petition for Special Relief seeking a determination of effective competition.   Time Warner asserts that it is subject to effective competition in the unincorporated portions of Horry   County, South Carolina ("unincorporated Horry County") because of the presence of Horry Cablevision's   cable service in that franchise area. Horry County filed an opposition, and Time Warner filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is granted.  S-  32.` ` Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications   Act") allows franchising authorities to become certified to regulate basic cable service rates of cable  SX-  operators which are not subject to effective competition.bX yO-ԍCommunications Act 623(a)(4), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(4).b For purposes of the initial request for   kcertification, local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that cable operators within their  S-  jurisdiction are not subject to effective competition unless they have actual knowledge to the contrary.OX yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906, 76.910(b)(4).O   Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing unless the Commission finds that the  S-authority 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).  Sh-  3.` ` In Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996  SB-  j("Cable Act Reform Order"),EBz yO\%-ԍ11 FCC Rcd 5937, 5944 (1996).E the Commission instructed cable operators believing themselves subject to   local exchange carrier ("LEC") effective competition under Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications   Act to file a petition for determination of effective competition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the" ,((88f!"  S-  Commission's rules.;C yOh-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.7.; A finding that a cable system is subject to effective competition precludes regulation  S-  of its cable rates by the local franchising authority.AXC yO-ԍ47 U.S.C.  543(a)(2).A Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition where:   #XX` ` a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming   # distributor using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video   #programming services directly to subscribers by any means (other than directto  #Thome satellite services) in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator   #which is providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if the video   #Fprogramming services so offered in that area are comparable to the video  Sp-programming services provided by the unaffiliated cable operator in that area.hpC yO -ԍCommunications Act 623(l)(1)(D), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(D).h `  S - II.THE PLEADINGS  S -  4.` ` Time Warner asserts that it is subject to LEC effective competition in its unincorporated  S -  Horry County, South Carolina franchise area.YX xC yO-  JԍThe community units SC0076, SC0077, and SC0080 were merged into a single unit, SC0080, which corresponds  yO-  ,to the coverage area of Time Warner's franchise agreement with Horry County. Petition for Special Relief filed by Time Warner on August 1, 1997 at 1.Y With regard to the LEC affiliation requirement, Time   .Warner asserts that Horry Cablevision ("Horry Cable") is a competing franchised cable operator wholly   owned by Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("Horry Telephone"), a local exchange carrier serving  S0-customers in Horry County, South Carolina. 0C yOh-  ԍHorry County awarded a cable franchise to Horry Cable in 1980. Petition for Special Relief filed by Time Warner on August 1, 1997 at 5.  S-  P5.` ` With regard to the requirement that the LEC competitor offer (  C yOp-  ЍIn implementing the LEC effective competition test on an interim basis, the Commission determined that its   preexisting definition of the term "offer" as used in the three effective competition definitions set forth in the 1992  yO-  Cable 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:   #CXX` ` (1) When the multichannel video programming distributor is physically able to deliver   #5service 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, 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 programming distributor. ` 47 C.F.R. 76.905(e).  video programming service   in the unaffiliated cable operator's franchise area, Time Warner asserts that Horry Cable operates an" ,p(p(88"   existing franchised cable system which makes service available to the public throughout unincorporated   -Horry County. Time Warner estimates that Horry Cable's system serves over 14,800 subscribers in Horry   County. Time Warner adds that Horry Cable has heavily marketed the availability of its cable service   kthrough local media and other means. Time Warner asserts there are no regulatory, technical, or other impediments to households taking service from Horry Cable. XX` ` `  S-  D6.` ` Time Warner also asserts that Horry Cable offers comparable programmingo zC yOx-  xЍThe Commission observed that Congress specified a different definition of comparable programming for the   LEC effective competition test from that adopted for the first three effective competition tests enacted as part of the   1992 Cable Act. Although soliciting comment as to the revised definition, the Commission on an interim basis   ydetermined that it will apply this new comparable programming standard which "includes access to at least 12   channels of programming, at least some of which are television broadcasting signals" to the LEC effective  {O` -  wcompetition test. See Cable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 5942  (quoting 1996 Act Conference Report, S. Rep. 104230 at 170 (Feb. 1, 1996)).o to   -unincorporated Horry County subscribers. Specifically, Time Warner provides Horry Cable's channel line  up which demonstrates that Horry Cable offers over 50 channels, of which at least 7 are local television   Lbroadcasting signals. Time Warner offers 62 channels of programming in unincorporated Horry County, of which at least 7 are local television broadcast signals.  S -  7.` ` Finally, Time Warner states that it has made several pricing and marketing changes in   response to competition from Horry Cable. Time Warner notes that it recently: (1) expedited an upgrade   of its cable plant to 450 MHz; (2) added channels to its expanded basic tier; and (3) extended customer service center hours during the week and initiated Saturday office hours.  SX-  8.` ` In opposition, Horry County urges the Commission to deny Time Warner's Petition.   Horry County does not provide any support or argument in its opposition other than providing a copy of   a resolution adopted by the County Council for Horry County which states that "Horry County does not  S-believe the action requested by Time Warner is in the public interest."  C {O-ԍSee Opposition to Petition for Special Relief filed by Horry County, South Carolina on Sept. 8, 1997 at 1.  S- III.ANALYSIS  S@-  9.` ` In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be  S-  subject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act.= C yOT-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906.= The cable operator bears the   Mburden of rebutting the presumption that such effective competition does not exist and must provide   Nevidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the  S-Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area.M, C yOl#-Ѝ47 C.F.R. 76.911(b)(1).M Time Warner has met this burden.  SP-  A10.` ` With regard to the first part of the LEC effective competition test, which requires that the   alleged competitive service be provided by a LEC or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming   distributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate), we find that Time Warner has   -provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that Horry Cable is an MVPD wholly owned by a LEC. Horry" ,p(p(88="  S-  Telephone is a LEC as defined by the Communications Act,d@C yOh-ЍThe Communications Act defines the term "local exchange carrier" as:   #XX` ` any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange   #access. Such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the   #3provision 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 Horry Cable meets the Commission's   definition of MVPD. Therefore, we find that Time Warner demonstrates that Horry Cable satisfies the   affiliation prong of the LEC effective competition test. Time Warner is unaffiliated with both Horry Cable and Horry Telephone.  S8-  11.` ` We also find that Time Warner has submitted sufficient evidence to show that the   programming of Horry Cable is comparable to the programming which it provides. The channel   information for Horry Cable submitted by Time Warner establishes that Horry Cable offers more than 52   channels of programming, including 7 local broadcast channels. This offering satisfies the programming comparability criterion.  SH -  12.` ` In addition, we find that based on the information before us, Horry Cable is offering   service in Time Warner's franchise area sufficient to demonstrate the presence of effective competition.   LHorry Cable has completed its overbuild of Time Warner's system in unincorporated Horry County and   is competing for customers with Time Warner in the area at issue. We find that Horry Cable's presence   and its service to 14,800 subscribers in the franchise area are indicia that Horry Cable is physically able to offer service in the cable community.  S0-  13.` ` We note that Horry Cable's extensive marketing efforts and large subscriber base ensure   that potential subscribers are reasonably aware of the availability of Horry Cable's service. Subscribers   =in unincorporated Horry County are able to receive Horry Cable's cable service for little or no additional   investment and without encountering regulatory or technical obstacles. We also note that Time Warner   [has upgraded its cable plant, added new channels, and increased customer service center hours, all for the   benefit of its subscribers. Applying the relevant criteria in Section 623(l)(1)(d) of the Communications   MAct, under the circumstances we find "effective competition" to be present. We disagree with Horry   County's unsupported assertion that granting Time Warner's Petition is contrary to the public interest.   The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which includes the LEC effective competition test, is based on the   determination of Congress that it is in the public interest to end rate regulation when effective competition  S-is present.~C yO!-ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L.N. 104104, 110 Stat. 56, approved Feb. 8, 1996.~  SP- IV.ORDERING CLAUSES  S(-  S-  &14.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Special Relief seeking a   0determination of effective competition filed by Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance /Newhouse  S-Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable IS GRANTED . "` ,p(p(88"Ԍ S-  15.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of Horry County, South Carolina to   \regulate the basic cable rates of Time Warner in the unincorporated portions of Horry County, South  S-Carolina IS REVOKED .  S`-  16.` ` This action is taken pursuant to the interim rules adopted in Implementation of Cable  S:-  [Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and is without prejudice to any further action   taken by the Commission in adopting final rules pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contained  S-therein.iC {OT-ԍCable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 59385945, 59615964.i  S-  17.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the  St-Commission's rules, as amended.;tZC yOn -ԍ47 C.F.R 0.321.; ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Meredith J. Jones  S\-` `  hh,Chief, Cable Services Bureau