WPC[$ 2BVXZ3|P (TT).7PC2X 4XP\  P6QXP"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddDeidra's printerDESPRINT.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,&YXP2 *4D Z43|P "5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSSDeidra's printerDESPRINT.WRSX\  P6G;,,,&YP2R   "5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT) X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;XP#"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(:822:!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,2222222722222222'$\ R"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5^*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888C8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82N8\\pC`pSS`*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS.xy.C8*X?C\  P6QP.y7PC2XXP\  P6QXPlz7UC2XXU4  pQX.|2J=.Xw&J\  P6Q&Pl{2N=.X&N4  pQ&.}P,%XJ,\  P6QJP.~I(!X,(\  P6Q,P0J=.X3U&J*f9 xQ&X{,C8*X3FC*f9 xQX         2Y$ S' X   )a X4 #&a\  P6G;w&P#Federal Communications Commission`~(#cDA 991684 ă   yxdddy )Պ#&a\  P6G;w&P#Qb Before the Federal Communications Commission  S'&2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of: #&a\  P6G;w&P#) ) Time Warner Communications, Inc.) )  S'Seminole, Florida)ppCUID Nos.  *FL0048  S')pp  *FL0766 )  SH 'Petition for Determination of )ppCSR5385E Effective Competition)    S '  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER \  SX'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:(>(&"Ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.905(e).  video programming service"X ,>(>(II"  xxin the unaffiliated cable operator's franchise area, Time Warner asserts that GTE was awarded a franchise  x&to provide cable television service in Seminole. Time Warner states that GTE has wired a substantial  xZportion of the City and is bound by its franchise agreement to complete construction within 3 years of  S' xbreaking ground.B XGM yO'ԍTime Warner Petition at 6.B Time Warner asserts that GTE is physically able to, and in fact is, offering service  S`' xto Seminole residents.1 `GM {O'ԍId.1 Moreover, Time Warner states that because GTE has a cable franchise for  S8'Seminole, there are no regulatory impediments to households taking its cable service.^ 8zGM {OR 'ԍId. GTE was awarded a franchise on June 9, 1998.^  S' e 6.` ` Time Warner asserts that potential subscribers in the franchise areas are reasonably aware  xthat they may purchase GTE 's service. Time Warner states that GTE has used direct mail, radio spots,  S'and newspaper advertising for purposes of promoting its services.7 GM {OD'ԍId. at 7.7  SH ' e 7.` ` Time Warner states that GTE offers comparable programming to Seminole subscribers.7H GM {O'ԍId. at 9.7  xSpecifically, Time Warner provides GTE's channel lineup which demonstrates that GTE offers subscribers  S ' x130 channels of programming, of which 12 are local television broadcasting signals.2 0 GM {O'ԍId. 2 Time Warner also  xasserts that GTE's channel lineup presently replicates a number of programming services Time Warner  S 'offers to its subscribers.2 GM {O 'ԍId. 2  SX' e 8.` ` Time Warner asserts that GTE's competitive presence in Seminole has already yielded  xtangible results. For example, Time Warner states that it has chosen not to implement a budgeted 4.9%  xrate increase in the City and anticipates rolling back its rates to meet the rates offered by GTE to city  S'residents.2T GM {O'ԍId. 2  S'  S'III.ANALYSIS  S@' e q9.` ` In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be  S' xZsubject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act.=GM 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 must provide"v,>(>(II"  xevidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the  S'Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area.DGM yO@'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.911(b)(1). D Time Warner has met this burden.  SH ' e 10.` ` 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  xdistributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such a LEC or its affiliate), we find that Time Warner has  xMprovided sufficient evidence demonstrating that GTE Media Ventures is an MVPD whollyowned by a  S ' xLEC. GTE is a LEC as defined by the Communications Act,P@ zGM yO'ԍThe Communications Act defines the term "local exchange carrier" as:   Xany 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 provision of a  q 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). P and GTE Media Ventures meets the  S ' xgCommission's definition of a MVPD.L GM {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.905(d). L Therefore, we find that GTE meets the affiliation prong of the LEC effective competition test.  S' e 11.` ` We also find that Time Warner has submitted sufficient evidence to show that the  xprogramming of GTE is comparable to Time Warner's programming. The channel information for GTE  xDsubmitted by Time Warner establishes that GTE offers about 130 channels of programming, including 12 local broadcast channels.  S@' e  12.` ` Time Warner has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that GTE is offering service  xin Time Warner's franchise areas. Time Warner has provided evidence that GTE 's cable television service  xis available in a substantial portion of Seminole and will soon be offered throughout the City pursuant to  xthe franchise agreement that GTE signed with Seminole. Thus, we find that GTE is physically able to offer service to Seminole residents. "x,>(>(II"Ԍ S' e 13.` ` We note that GTE's marketing efforts, including newspaper and radio advertisements and  xdistribution of promotional materials ensure that potential subscribers are reasonably aware of the  xDavailability of GTE's service. In those areas wired and marketed by GTE, potential subscribers need only  xcontact the company to activate service. Moreover, those subscribers are able to receive GTE 's cable  xservice for little or no additional investment and without encountering regulatory or technical obstacles.  x&Time Warner has also asserted that competition from GTE has had the important effect of restraining  x increases in cable rates. Consistent with Congressional intent in adopting Section 623(1)(1)(D) of the  S' x3Communications Act,CGM yOP'ԍ47 U.S.C. 543(1)(1)(D).C and under the circumstances presented to us in this matter, we find "effective competition" to be present.  Sp' IV.ORDERING CLAUSES  S ' e r14.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Special Relief seeking a  S 'determination of effective competition by Time Warner Communications, Inc. IS GRANTED.  S ' e 15.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of the City of Seminole, Florida to  S 'regulate the basic cable rates of Time Warner Communications. Inc. in Seminole IS REVOKED.  S0' e 16.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the  S'Commission's rules, as amended.<XGM yO'ԍ47 C.F.R. 0.321.< ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCWilliam H. Johnson  S'` `  hhCDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau