********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of:

Marcus Cable Associates, d/b/a Charter
Communications

Petitions for Determination of Effective
Competition in: Burleson, Texas (CUID No.
TX1214); Keller, Texas (CUID No. TX0584);
Mansfield, Texas (CUID No. TX0549); Edgecliff
Village, Texas (CUID No. TX1215); Kennedale,
Texas (CUID No. TX0711); Blue Mound (CUID
No. TX0911); and North Richland Hills (CUID No.
TX0632)


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)





CSR 5704-E
CSR 5705-E
CSR 5706-E
CSR 5707-E
CSR 5708-E
CSR 5709-E
CSR 5710-E



                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  July 19, 2001            Released:  July 25, 2001

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:


     I.   introduction
1.     Marcus Cable Associates, d/b/a Charter Communications ("Charter"), has filed seven separate
petitions pursuant to Sections 76.905 of the Commission's rules for determinations of effective
competition in seven Texas communities. Charter alleges that its cable systems serving Burleson, Keller,
Mansfield, Edgecliff Village, Kennedale, Blue Mound, and North Richland Hills (the "Communities")
are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended ("Act"), and the Commission's implementing rules, and are therefore exempt from cable
rate regulation and related requirements. Charter claims the presence of effective competition in the
Communities stems from the competing services provided by DirecTV and Echostar, two satellite
carriers providing video services to the above captioned Communities. Charter's petitions are unopposed.
2.     The Communications Act and the Commission's rules provide that only the rates of cable
systems that are not subject to effective competition may be regulated.  One of the bases by which a
cable system will be deemed subject to effective competition is where a franchise area is: (i) served by at
least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors each of which offers comparable
programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; and (ii) the number of
households subscribing to multichannel video programming other than the largest multichannel video
programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.  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.  Charter has met this burden.
II.         DISCUSSION
3.     Charter has submitted reliable evidence demonstrating that the Communities are served by at
least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs") offering comparable
service to more than 50 percent of the households therein.  Relying on Commission precedent, Charter
notes that the services of DirecTV and Echostar satisfy this requirement. Charter has also submitted
sufficient evidence demonstrating that the number of households subscribing to MVPDs other than to
Charter, the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in all of the franchise areas. Relying
on DBS subscribership reports obtained from SKYTrends, a media research reporting and consulting
firm, Charter submits evidence that the aggregate subscribership to DBS service in the Communities
exceeds 15 percent of the households in each franchise area. 
4.     In addition, Charter submits evidence that: (1) it is not affiliated with either DirecTV or
Echostar; (2) subscribers in its franchise areas are well aware of the competing satellite video services by
virtue of the extensive nationwide and local advertising and marketing DirecTV and Echostar have
undertaken; and (3) both DirecTV and Echostar offer over 100 channels of video programming each.
Taking this information into consideration with the pass and penetration figures submitted by the
company, we find that Charter has submitted the requisite evidence to satisfy the competing provider test.

III.        ORDERING CLAUSES
5.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for special relief, requesting findings of
effective competition in the Communities filed by Charter Communications ARE GRANTED.   
6.     This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission's rules.
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              William H. Johnson                 
                                   Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau

                         Attachment A
          Percentage of Households in the Communities 
        Subscribing to MVPDs Other than the Largest MVPD
                                
CommunityHHs in Franchise Area      Number of DBS HHs     % of DBS HHs
1.  Burleson5557       1697                                 30.54
            2.  Keller4487       2131          47.49
    3.  Mansfield5130       2426                       47.29
4.  Edgecliff Village    976                   171                    17.52
          
5.  Kennedale       1458                  363                     24.90
6.  Blue Mound      668                   116                     17.4
7.  N. Richland Hills    16,901                     3508                    20.76