WPC 2B3X Z3|C / (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"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;,,,&YP2 *4DR3|a /  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN]J?]L@]uMA]NOmniPage #7>5  OmniPage #5?A  OmniPage #6@^kx ZA OmniPage #8A@:h t 2UB]aPC]QD]SE]xTOmniPage #25petiBt?  OmniPage #26CW.  OmniPage #51D5x_ P3' OmniPage #52Ec\!  Y, 2{[F]VG]dWH]XI]ZOmniPage #76F  OmniPage #77Ga $ OmniPage #10+P#Hm_ y OmniPage #12ltloIN\X  2!aJ][K] ]L]g^M]_OmniPage #15WTC J] ~ [ OmniPage #17PKW\@  OmniPage #18meriLx   OmniPage #20he CMK  2fN]SaO]bP] dQ]jeOmniPage #23 N<  OmniPage #28O " OmniPage #30#%P[ F OmniPage #33F Q   2%pKfKDiKkKm"i~'^5>I\\>>>\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~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd%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>lBBn72zKWpKrKt8w"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""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\"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd          2z#}"5^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====I=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\G\fGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7N=eegIjg\\j.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\"5^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=eeiIji\\j.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f"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,,,,,2222222722222222p4\$R"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$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS.Sy.C8*X?C\  P6QP.T7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.U2J=.Xw&J\  P6Q&PlV2N=.X&N4  pQ&lW7UC2XXU4  pQX.XP,%XJ,\  P6QJP.YI(!X,(\  P6Q,PZ{,C8*X3FC*f9 xQX0J=.X3U&J*f9 xQ&X.T7PC2XXP\  P6QXP"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\2 S' X   PT S'I#Xj\  P6G;XP##&a\  P6G;w&P# Federal Communications Commission`~(#DA 991921 ă   yxdddy P6 X'#Xj\  P6G;XP#  numbering #X\  P6G;?P#ь#&a\  P6G;w&P#Q #&a\  P6G;w&P#Before the IFederal Communications Commission  S'&yWashington, D.C. 20554 ă  S'#&a\  P6G;w&P#  S`'In the Matter of: Ghh})CSR 5031E  S8'` `  Ghh})  S'Cablevision Systems of Connecticut. L.P.)Fairfield, CT  S'` `  Ghh})Bridgeport, CT  S'` `  Ghh})Stratford, CT  S'` `  Ghh})Orange, CT  Sp'Petition for Determination ofGhh})Woodbridge, CT  SH 'Effective Competition Ghh})Milford, CT ` `  Ghh}pp"X  S 'B  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER l  S ' Adopted: September 17, 1999  pp"Released: September 21, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:   S' I.INTRODUCTION   S'  k Ԋ1.` ` Cablevision Systems of Connecticut, L.P. ("Cablevision") has filed a petition for special  |$prelief seeking a determination of effective competition. Cablevision asserts that it is subject to local  S@' |$exchange carrier ("LEC")\@@H yO'ԍThe Communications Act defines the term "local exchange carrier" as:    XX` ` any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange   5 access. Such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the   \ provision of a commercial mobile service under Section 332(c), except to the extent that the Commission finds that such service should be included in the definition of such term. ` Communications Act  3(26), 47 U.S.C.  153(26).\ effective competition in its franchise area consisting of the Connecticut towns  |$gof Fairfield, Bridgeport, Stratford, Orange, Woodbridge and Milford, Connecticut because of the cable  |$operations of SNET Personal Vision, Inc. ("SNET"). SNET and the Connecticut Department of Public  S' |$cUtility Control ("DPUC")XH yO8 'ԍThe DPUC is Cablevision's franchising authority.X each filed an opposition to Cablevision's petition. Cablevision filed a joint  S' |$Zreply to the two oppositions and later filed three supplemental pleadings to update the record.` H yO"'ԍCablevision filed supplemental pleadings on September 15, 1998, December 16, 1998 and August 3, 1999. For the reasons discussed below, Cablevision's petition is granted.  S('  k2.` ` Section 623(a)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications  |$Act") allows franchising authorities to become certified to regulate basic cable service rates of cable  S' |$operators which are not subject to effective competition.b H yOh('ԍCommunications Act 623(a)(4), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(4).b For purposes of the initial request for" ,**88E"  |$certification, local franchising authorities may rely on a presumption that cable operators within their  S' |$jurisdiction are not subject to effective competition unless they have actual knowledge to the contrary.O( yO@'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906, 76.910(b)(4).O  |$Certification becomes effective 30 days from the date of filing unless the Commission finds that the  S' |$^authority does not meet the statutory certification requirements.X( {O'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.910(e); 47 C.F.R. 76.910(b); see also Communications Act 623(a)(4), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(4). In Implementation of Cable Act Reform  Sb' |$Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Cable Act Reform Order"),Eb( 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  S' |$effective competition pursuant to Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules.;z( yO 'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.7.; Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition where:   XX` ` a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming   distributor using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video   iprogramming services directly to subscribers by any means (other than directto  home satellite services) in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator   which is providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if the video   programming services so offered in that area are comparable to the video  S 'programming services provided by the unaffiliated cable operator in that area. ( {O.'ԍCommunications Act 623(l)(1)(D), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(D); see 47 C.F.R. 76.905(b)(4). `  S4'  k3.` ` To support a finding of effective competition under the LEC test, the LEC's cable service  S ' |$must substantially overlap the incumbent cable operator's service in the franchise area.  ( {OH' |$| ԍSee Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, FCC 9957,  10 (rel. Mar. 29, 1999). The Commission  |$kconsiders a LEC's potential service area as well as where it actually offers service in determining effective competition under the LEC test.  Sl' II.THE PLEADINGS  S'  k4.` ` Cablevision asserts that on September 25, 1996, the Connecticut DPUC granted to SNET  S' |$a single franchise to provide cable television service throughout the entire state of Connecticut.6  ( yO"'ԍPetition at 1.6  |$MCablevision states that pursuant to state law, the DPUC is the cable television franchising authority for  |$all of Connecticut. While SNET is Connecticut's sole statewide cable franchisee, Cablevision states that  |$every other cable operator in Connecticut provides cable service pursuant to townbased franchise area  ST' |$boundaries established by the DPUC.7 T ( {Oz''ԍId. at 2.7 Under this framework, Connecticut's 169 towns are divided into"T ,p(p(88"  |$24 franchise areas with Cablevision holding a single franchise to provide cable service to the six town area  S' |$xknown as Area 2.1 ( {O@'ԍId.1 According to Cablevision, SNET's cable service is offered in Area 2 and is deliverable  S'by means of SNET's hybrid fiber coaxial network.1Z( {O'ԍId.1  S`'  kW5.` ` Cablevision asserts that it is subject to LEC effective competition in its Area 2 franchise.  S8' |$kWith regard to the LEC affiliation requirement, 8( yO ' |$ ԍThe Commission determined that the definition of affiliate provided in Section 3 of the 1996 Act will apply to the LEC effective competition test: The term "affiliate" means a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with another person. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "own" means to own an equity interest (or the equivalent thereof) of more than 10 percent.  {O'Cable Act Reform Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 5944 (quoting Communications Act  3(1), 47 U.S.C.  153(1)). Cablevision asserts that SNET is a competing, franchised  |$kcable operator whollyowned by the Southern New England Telephone Company, which is the incumbent  S'local exchange carrier serving the State of Connecticut.6 ( yOF'ԍPetition at 5.6  S'  k6.` ` With regard to the requirement that the LEC competitor offer( N ( yO' |$ ԍIn 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' |$x 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:    XX` ` (1) When the multichannel video programming distributor is physically able to deliver     service 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   m (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  |$7in the unaffiliated cable operator's franchise area, Cablevision asserts that SNET is now providing service  SH ' |$to subscribers in Area 2.6H >( yO&#'ԍPetition at 8.6 To substantiate its claim, Cablevision states that on May 23, 1997, SNET  |$began to offer 80 channels of cable television service to 7,200 households in Fairfield, CT, one of the  S ' |$towns located in Area 2.1 ( {Of&'ԍId.1 Cablevision states that SNET was contractually obligated to provide cable" `,p(p(88 "  S' |$Zservice to all, or portions of, Fairfield, Bridgeport, Stratford, and Milford by the end of 1998.1( {Oh'ԍId.1 As for  S' |$ Orange and Woodbridge, the remaining two towns in Area 2, Cablevision states that SNET has not made  |$known when they will receive service but believes it will be earlier than 2007, the date SNET is obligated  S' |$/to wire all of the communities in the State.1Z( {O'ԍId.1 In its supplemental pleadings, Cablevision states that,  |$although SNET has filed with the DPUC a request for a temporary pause in its buildout schedule, such  S8' |$a request does not change any of the relevant facts necessary to a finding of effective competition.`8( yO 'ԍCablevision's Supplemental Pleading (Aug. 3, 1999) at 2.`  |$Cablevision states that SNET has marketed the availability of its cable service in the local media, and  S' |$7through telemarketing and direct mail campaigns.G|( {O 'ԍId. at 11 and Exhibit 11.G Cablevision asserts there are no regulatory, technical,  |$or other impediments to households taking service from SNET in those portions of the franchise area  S'already wired by SNET.8( {OF'ԍId. at 10.8  SH '  k7.` ` Cablevision also asserts that SNET offers comparable programmingTzH ( yO' |$* ԍThe Commission observed that Congress specified a different definition of comparable programming for the  |$ 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  |$t determined that it will apply this new comparable programming standard which "includes access to at least 12  |$} channels of programming, at least some of which are television broadcasting signals" to the LEC effective  {Op' |$ competition test. See Cable Act Reform Order at 12 (quoting 1996 Act Conference Report, S. Rep. 104230 at 170 (Feb. 1, 1996)).T to Area 2  |$subscribers. Specifically, Cablevision provides SNET's channel lineup which demonstrates that SNET  S ' |$"offers 80 channels, 22 of which are local television broadcasting signals.E ( yOz'ԍPetition at 4 and Exhibit 11.E Cablevision offers 110  S ' |$channels of programming, 22 of which are local broadcast signals.G r( {O'ԍId. at 13 and Exhibit 14.G Cablevision states that it has  S 'upgraded its network plant and added channels in response to increased competition from SNET.8 ( {OL 'ԍId. at 14.8(#(#1  SX'  k8.` ` Cablevision argues that it is immaterial that SNET currently serves only a portion of Area  |$&2 as the statutory language set forth in the amendment to Section 623(l) is clear on its face: cable rate  |$deregulation is triggered if comparable multichannel video programming service is offered by a LEC  S' |$affiliate in the "franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator."7( {O&'ԍId. at 9.7 Cablevision asserts that to rule  |$"otherwise would aggravate competitive advantages already enjoyed by SNET due to its status as a"(,p(p(88"  |$<statewide franchisee, since Cablevision's ability to freely respond to ongoing competition would be  S' |$completely dependent upon SNET's service deployment schedule.8( {O@'ԍId. at 10.8 Cablevision adds that SNET could  |$"cherrypick" the most desirable parts of the state's townbased franchise areas during its initial rollout,  |$while postponing service to less attractive portions of those franchise areas and thereby delay the onset  S`'of deregulation in the townbased franchise areas where it is competing.1`Z( {OZ'ԍId.1  S'  kW9.` ` In opposition, SNET argues that the circumstances of this case indicate that Cablevision  S' |$is not subject to effective competition throughout its entire franchise area.= ( yOt 'ԍSNET Opposition at 6.= SNET notes that it offers  S' |$service in only one of the six towns encompassing Cablevision's franchise area.!B|( {O ' |$@ ԍSNET is obligated to provide service to every community in Connecticut by September, 2007. See SNET  |$ PersonalVision, Inc. Franchise Agreement at  3.2(b) ("Franchisee shall deploy its System on a minimum schedule  |$ of 126 average miles per month in 1998, 135 average miles per month in 1999, 168 average miles per month in  |$ 2000, 159 average miles per month in 2001, 156 average miles per month in 2002, 130 average miles per month in  |$g 2003, 121 average miles per month in 2004, 104 average miles per month in 2005, 95 average miles per month in  |$ 2006, and 108 average miles per month in 2007. Notwithstanding the foregoing schedule, Franchisee shall augment  |$ its proposed level of deployment such that all residences within the franchise area shall be passed by Franchisee's system within 11 years from the date hereof [September 25, 1996]"). SNET argues that  |$because consumers do not enjoy the benefits of competition in those areas it does not serve, Cablevision  Sp'should not enjoy the benefit of deregulation throughout its franchise area.8"p ( {O'ԍId. at 11.8  S '  k10.` ` SNET further contends that the cable service it is providing does not meet the test for  S ' |$offering services for purposes of effective competition.8# ( {O'ԍId. at 11.8 SNET states that it is not physically able to offer  |$service, with no or only minimal investment, to potential subscribers in any part of the franchise area other  S ' |$Qthan the town of Fairfield.1$ ( {O'ԍId.1 SNET argues that because it has not constructed its cable plant in any of the  |$other five towns in the franchise area, insurmountable technical impediments prevent households in the  SX' |$unwired area from receiving service.8%X<( {O4!'ԍId. at 12.8 SNET adds that while the Cable Services Bureau has deregulated  |$cable operators who did not yet face effective competition throughout their entire franchise area, it was  |$kcareful to note in such cases that the applicable franchises provided for completion of construction within  S' |$three years by the LECaffiliated competitor throughout the franchise area at issue;&^( {ON%' |$ ԍId. at 10. SNET cites the following LEC effective competition cases to support its position: Time Warner {O&' |$ Pinellas County, FL, CSR4850E, DA 97520 (rel. Mar. 12, 1997); Time WarnerColumbus, OH, 11 FCC Rcd  {O&'17298 (1996); and Time WarnerClearwater, FL, CSR 4773E, DA 962094 (rel. Dec. 12, 1996). here, residents of two"&,p(p(88"  S' |$of the six towns within Cablevision's franchise area may not benefit from competition for up to ten years.7'( {Oh'ԍId.7  |$&Further, SNET contends that residents in the unserved towns are not reasonably aware that they may  S' |$purchase SNET's services because they in fact cannot purchase such services.8(Z( {O'ԍId. at 12.8 Finally, SNET asserts that  |$since the residents in the other five towns within Cablevision's franchise area do not yet enjoy the same  |$kbenefits of competition as do residents in Fairfield, Cablevision must continue to be subject to the uniform  S8' |$rate requirement throughout its entire franchise area.1)8( {O 'ԍId.1 DPUC filed an opposition in which it did not raise  |$any additional arguments or facts. Instead, DPUC's opposition expresses support for the position and legal arguments presented by SNET.  S'  k11.` ` In its reply, Cablevision disagrees with SNET's contention that effective competition is  |$}not achieved until each separate community in a franchise area is served by the LEC affiliated cable  |$ operator. Cablevision believes that SNET's position amounts to an entirely new effective competition  S ' |$standard which has no statutory or regulatory foundation.?* ~( yO>'ԍCablevision Reply at 3.? Cablevision contends that the plain language  |$and legislative history of the 1996 Telecommunications Act dictates that effective competition occurs  |$Dwhenever a LEC affiliate offers comparable multichannel video programming service "in" the incumbent's  S ' |$franchise area.1+ ( {OV'ԍId.1 Cablevision asserts that, in effect, SNET is asking the Commission to read a "homes S ' |$passed" criterion into Section 623(l)(1)(D).7, ( {O'ԍId. at 8.7 Cablevision notes that Congress wrote a penetration  |$requirement into the law defining other means of achieving effective competition, but declined to adopt  S0'one for the LEC effective competition test.7-02 ( {O'ԍId.7  S'  k412.` ` Cablevision contends that SNET's opposition concedes all of the relevant factors necessary  |$to establish effective competition under Section 623(l)(1)(D). Cablevision also cites a filing SNET made  |$with DPUC in connection with SNET's application for a statewide cable franchise, in which SNET argued  |$that approval of the application would introduce effective competition within the meaning of Section  S@' |$623(l)(1)(D)..@ ( {O!' |$  ԍId. at 13, citing Comments of SNET filed before the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control on March 6, 1996 at 19 (attached to reply as Exhibit 1). Finally, Cablevision argues that SNET's contention regarding the applicability of the  S'uniform rate rules are without merit as there is no evidence that the rules are currently being violated.8/( {O$'ԍId. at 17.8  S' "/,p(p(88"Ԍ S'  k 13.` ` In a supplemental pleading filed by Cablevision on December 16, 1998, the operator  S' |$explains that the DPUC0( {O@' |$ ԍSee Joint Application of SBC Communications Inc. and the Southern New England Telecommunications  {O 'Corporation for a Change in Control, DPUC Docket No. 980220 (rel. Sept. 2, 1998) ("DPUC Order"). and the Federal Communications Commission1\$( {O' |$ ԍSee In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214  |$ Authorizations from Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation, Transferor, to SBC Communications,  {O.'Inc., Transferee, CC Docket No. 9825, Memorandum Opinion and Order (rel. Oct. 23, 1998). granted Applications for Transfer  S' |$of Control of Licenses and Authorizations from SNET to SBC Communications, Inc. ("SBC").a2H( yO 'ԍCablevision's Supplemental Pleading (Dec. 16, 1998) at 2.a  |$Cablevision explains that, as a result of the transfer, SNET Personal Vision has become an indirect wholly S`' |$owned subsidiary of SBC. Cablevision states that, as an express condition of the DPUC Order, the  |$<Connecticut DPUC required "SBC to commit to maintaining the SNET/SBC current level of capital  |$*investment, staffing, marketing, research, and facility deployment proposed and accepted by the [DPUC]  S' |$in [SNET's original] franchise agreement. . . for not less than 24 months following the Merger." I3( {Ob'ԍSee DPUC Order at 59.I Based  |$on this conclusion, Cablevision asserts that SBC must continue to expand its system and offer cable service to thousands of homes in Cablevision's franchise area for at least the next two years.  SJ '  k   14. ` ` In a second supplemental pleading filed by Cablevision on August 3, 1999, updating the  |$3information contained in its petition, the operator maintains that SNET's cable service is now available  S ' |$Ito more than 37,000 residences in the towns of Fairfield, Bridgeport, and Stratford.4 j ( {O' |$" ԍCablevision Supplemental Pleading (Aug. 3, 1999) at 2, citing SNET's June 1999 CATV Report to the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control. Specifically,  |$tCablevision contends that 12,131 homes are passed in Fairfield, 7,995 homes are passed in Bridgeport,  S ' |$and 17,458 homes are passed in Stratford.15 ( {O'ԍId.1 Cablevision asserts that actual subscriber counts have been  S 'withheld by SNET because the information is considered proprietary.  S2' III.ANALYSIS  S'  kq15.` ` In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be  S' |$Zsubject to effective competition as defined in the Communications Act.=6V ( yO 'ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.906.= The cable operator bears the  |$burden of rebutting the presumption that such effective competition does not exist and must provide  |$evidence sufficient to demonstrate that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the  SB'Commission's rules, is present in the franchise area.M7B( yO$'Ѝ47 C.F.R. 76.911(b)(1).M Cablevision has met this burden.  S'  k16.` ` With regard to the first part of the LEC effective competition test, which requires that the  |$7alleged competitive service be provided by a LEC or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming"v7,p(p(88e"  |$distributor ("MVPD") using the facilities of such LEC or its affiliate), we find that SNET is an MVPD  |$whollyowned by a LEC. Southern New England Telephone Company, as an independent entity was a  S' |$3LEC, and the newly merged SNETSBC is a LEC, as defined by the Communications Act.8( {O'ЍSee supra n.1 (discussing the Communications Act definition of the term "local exchange carrier.") SNET, in  S' |$both its former and current status, meets the Commission's definition of MVPD.F9Z( yO' |$/ ԍThe Commission's rules define an MVPD as "an entity such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a  |$Q multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, a television receiveonly satellite  |$ program distributor, a video dialtone service provider, or a satellite master antenna television service provider that  |$ make available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming." 47 C.F.R. 76.905(d).F Therefore, we find that  |$Cablevision has demonstrated that SNET satisfies the affiliation prong of the LEC effective competition  |$test. We further find that Cablevision is not affiliated with either SNET, Southern New England Telephone Company, or SBC.  S'  k17.` ` We also find that Cablevision has submitted sufficient evidence to show that the  |$programming of SNET is comparable to the programming which it provides. The channel information  |$kfor SNET submitted by Cablevision establishes that SNET offers more than 80 channels of programming, including 22 local broadcast stations. This offering satisfies the programming comparability criterion.  S '  k>18.` ` We find that, based on the information before us, SNET is offering service in  |$Cablevision's franchise area sufficient to demonstrate the presence of effective competition. Cablevision  |$asserts that SNET has constructed cable plant that passes more than 37,000 homes in Area 2, with more  |$expected by the end of this year. Cablevision has made improvements to its cable service in response to  |$xthe impending competition throughout its franchise area. We note that SNET had filed an application with  S0' |$the DPUC to modify its franchise agreement to reflect the towns it proposes to serve in the next year.:0 ( {O' |$ ԍSee Application of SNET Personal Vision, Inc. to Modify its Franchise Agreement, Docket No. 990402 (April  |$7 1, 1999). In accord with Section 625 of the Communications Act, SNET also sought the approval of the DPUC to  |$ suspend certain franchise obligations while it evaluates whether there are alternative technologies to hybrid fiber coax  yO4' |$k for offering telephony services. According to SNET, it provides cable service to 24,000 Connecticut subscribers,  {O' |$ has constructed 3,500 miles of plant, and has achieved a statewide penetration rate of approximately 16%. Id. at 2.  S' |$SNET's application with regard to its buildout schedule was granted by the DPUC on August 26, 1999.k; ( {O.'ԍSee DPUC Revised Draft Decision in Docket No. 990402.k  |$Under the new schedule, as it relates to Cablevision's Petition, SNET will continue to serve the town of  S' |$}Fairfield, and will activate service to Stratford and portions of Bridgeport by April 1, 2000.7<( {Op!'ԍId. at 207 Thus, several of the towns in Area 2 with significant population centers are being, or will soon be, served.  S@'  kz19.` ` We also recognize that the DPUC has conditioned the SNETSBC merger on the new  |$centity's commitment to continue its provision of service through the Fall of 2000. While there is no  |$indication, as of yet, that SNETSBC will continue the cable overbuild project beyond the year 2000, we  |$cannot deny Cablevision's petition based on future circumstances. In any event, the DPUC may, if SNET |$SBC discontinues its cable overbuild project, file a recertification petition with the Commission to re"<,p(p(88"ԫ S' |$establish rate regulation authority over the franchise area at issue here.G=( {Oh'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.916.G Nonetheless, as it currently  |$stands, we find that SNET's presence, ongoing buildout, and its active recruitment of subscribers in the franchise area are indicia that SNET is physically able to offer service in Cablevision's franchise area.  S`'  k20.` ` We disagree with SNET's assertion that a determination of effective competition must be  |$made for each town in the franchise area instead of a demonstration that effective competition exists on  S' |$&a franchisewide basis.'>$Z( yO ' |$ ԍThe term "franchise area" is understood to mean the area a system operator is granted to serve in its franchise.  {M ' |$ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1993, First  {O ' |$H Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No.  {Od '92266 9 FCC Rcd 1164, 1181 (1994) ("First Reconsideration Order").' In enacting the 1996 Act, Congress specified that the "franchise area" is the  |$3geographic unit to which the Commission must apply LEC effective competition criteria. As we have  |$stated previously with regard to the other effective competition tests "we are not in a position to alter the  S' |$plain language of the statute through our regulations."}?F( {O~' |$& ԍId. In this regard, we find the prior Commission rulings cited by SNET support that the Commission has  {OH' |$ consistently applied the LEC effective competition test based on the franchise area of the incumbent. See Time  {O' |$ Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership, 11 FCC Rcd. 20,909 (1996); Time Warner Entertainment {O' |$ Advance/Newhouse Partnership and Paragon Communications, 12 FCC Rcd. 3143 (1997); Paragon Communications, DA 97566 (rel. Mar. 18, 1977). } In addition, the fact that Connecticut awards  |$kfranchises covering several municipalities instead of awarding a franchise covering each locality, by itself,  |$does not warrant a change in the "franchise area" definition. The application of the effective competition  |$criteria to the accepted franchise area definition was taken into account by Connecticut as part of its  |$statewide cable regulation program. During deliberations whether to award SNET a statewide franchise,  |$the Connecticut DPUC recognized that Commission determinations of LEC effective competition are based  S ' |$on the LEC or its affiliate offering video services in the franchise area of an incumbent.@Z ( {OF' |$ ԍSee Decision of State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control re: Application of SNET Personal  |$M Vision, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Community Antenna Television Service, Docket No. 960124 at 48 (Sept. 25, 1996) (attached to Cablevision's Petition as Exhibit 1). DPUC  |$evaluated whether to approve a limited franchise area to avoid deregulation of cable rates in portions of  |$the state in which SNET was not offering service. DPUC determined that an award of a statewide cable  |$franchise would not lead to premature deregulation of cable rates based on its understanding that, under  |$Commission rules, effective competition would not exist in any incumbent operator's franchise area until  S' |$such time as SNET made its services available in an incumbent operator's franchise area.1A ( {O 'ԍId.1 Thus, use of  |$the franchise area criterion was not a circumstance unforeseen by Connecticut and does not act to block  S'the grant of Cablevision's petition.B\( yO#' |$ ԍWe note that the DPUC, in granting SNET's new buildout schedule, stated that: "[T]he proposed towns to be  {O$' |$U served during the study period do not constitute creamskimming or redlining and are acceptable as proposed." See  {Ot%'DPUC Revised Draft Decision in Docket No. 990402 at 19. "h B,p(p(88"Ԍ S'  k21.` ` SNET's marketing efforts and the wide press coverage of SNET's construction and cable  |$service offerings in the local media ensure that potential subscribers are reasonably aware of the  |$availability of SNET's service. According to documents submitted by Cablevision, in those areas wired  |$and marketed by SNET, potential subscribers need only contact SNET to activate service. Those  |$subscribers are able to receive SNET's cable service for little or no additional investment and without  |$encountering regulatory or technical obstacles. Consistent with the Congressional intent in adopting  |$DSection 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act, under the circumstances presented herein, we find that effective competition is present.  S' IV.ORDERING CLAUSES  Sp'  SH '  kr22.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Special Relief seeking a  S 'determination of effective competition filed by Cablevision Systems of Connecticut, L.P. IS GRANTED.  S '  k23.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of the Connecticut Department of  |$Public Utility Control to regulate the basic cable rates of Cablevision Systems of Connecticut, L.P. in  |$Franchise Area 2, comprising the towns of Fairfield, Bridgeport, Stratford, Orange, Woodbridge and  SX'Milford, Connecticut, IS REVOKED .  S'  k24.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the  S'Commission's rules, as amended.;C( yOH'ԍ47 C.F.R 0.321.; ` `  Ghh}FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  Ghh}William H. Johnson ` `  Ghh}Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau