Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) Rifkin Communications Partners, L.P.) and Interlink Communications Partners, L.P.) ) Petition for Revocation ) ) of the certification of ) Fayette County,West Virginia, ) to Regulate Basic Cable Service ) Rates ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 19, 1999 Released: July 22, 1999 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Rifkin Communications Partners, L.P., and Interlink Communications Partners, L.P. ("Rifkin") filed a Petition for Revocation challenging the certification of Fayette County, West Virginia, ("the County") to regulate rates for basic cable service and associated equipment. Rifkin also requests that the Commission stay rate regulation pending resolution of its petition. The County did not file an opposition to Rifkin's petition. 2. Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, allows franchising authorities to become certified to regulate basic cable service rates of cable operators that are not subject to effective competition. For purposes of the initial request for certification, local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that cable operators within their jurisdiction are not subject to effective competition, unless the franchising authority has actual knowledge to the contrary. Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing unless the Commission finds that the franchising authority does not meet the statutory certification requirements. Cable operators may file petitions for reconsideration of the franchising authority's certification within 30 days from the date such certification becomes effective. Rate regulation is automatically stayed pending review of a timely-filed petition for reconsideration alleging the presence of effective competition. After the 30-day deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration has elapsed, cable operators may challenge the franchising authority's certification by filing a petition for revocation. However, regardless of its grounds, a petition for revocation does not automatically trigger a stay of the franchising authority's power to regulate basic rates. II. DISCUSSION 3. Rifkin operates two cable systems within Fayette County. The first system serves the central portion of unincorporated Fayette County (the "central system"). The second system serves the southern portion of unincorporated Fayette County (the "southern system"). Rifkin argues that each cable system is subject to low penetration effective competition in unincorporated Fayette County because it serves fewer than 30% of the households therein. Specifically, Rifkin asserts that its central system serves 1,823 of the 11,506 households (that is, occupied housing units) or 15.8% of the total number of households in the franchise area and that its southern system serves 435 of the 11,506 households or 3.7% of the total number of households in unincorporated Fayette County. As supporting documentation, Rifkin provides 1990 Census data which demonstrates that there are 11,506 households in unincorporated Fayette County. Rifkin also submits a computer print-out with sufficient subscriber information to support its claim that its central system serves 1,823 households and its southern system serves 435 households in unincorporated Fayette County. 4. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules, is present within its franchise area. Rifkin has met this burden. Rifkin appropriately relied on Census data reflecting the number of households as required by our regulations. Rifkin has submitted sufficient information demonstrating that its central system serves 1,823 of the 11,506 households in franchise area or 15.8% of the total number of households and that its southern system serves 435 of the 11,506 households in the franchise area or 3.7%. Therefore, we find that Rifkin's systems serving unincorporated Fayette County are subject to low penetration effective competition. 5. Rifkin concedes that petitions for revocation pursuant to Section 76.914 of the Commission's rules do not convey a right to an automatic stay of rate regulation, nevertheless, Rifkin requests a stay pending Commission review of Rifkin's Petition for Revocation. Rifkin's petition presents no evidence sufficient to waive the requirement in Section 76.914(d) that local franchising authorities may continue to regulate basic cable service rates while a petition for revocation is pending before the Commission. Accordingly, Rifkin's request for stay of rate regulation is denied. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for revocation filed by Rifkin Communications Partners, L.P. and Interlink Communications Partners, L.P., challenging the certification of Fayette County, West Virginia to regulate basic cable rates IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of Fayette County, West Virginia, to regulate Rifkin Communications Partners, L.P.'s and Interlink Communications Partners, L.P.'s basic cable service rates IS REVOKED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rifkin Communications Partners, L.P.'s and Interlink Communications Partners, L.P.'s request for stay of rate regulation IS DENIED. 9 . This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Deborah A. Lathen Chief, Cable Services Bureau