HomeMy WebLinkAboutILA - Mid-Columbia Regional Cable Commission TERMINATION OF ILA and COMMISSION 03.07.2022
DOCUSIGN SIGNATURE ROUTING FORM
Staff Contact: _______________________
Phone: _______________________
Department: _______________________
Date Needed: _______________________
Council Approval: _________ and RES/ORD No: ________ ; or ___ Standing Authority Res No. 157-15
If the document being executed is an amendment to an existing Richland contract, please provide the
assigned contract number: __________
Why Sign?
**********************************************************************************************************************
City Attorney’s Office:
___ Authority verified
___ Certificate of Insurance (COI) included/pending execution; or ___ N/A
___ All exhibits/attachments included; or ___ N/A
___ DocuSign eligible per Policy No. 0950 for Electronic Signatures
___ Attached applicable resolution/ordinance
Rev. 6/2020
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY: Complete and route with
documents submitted for approval via DocuSign
to the City Manager, Purchasing Manager or City
Attorney. Vendors/third parties may disregard.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
X
X
All - In 2015, I reached out to the two cities to inquire about terminating the interlocal agreement that
established the Mid-Columbia Cable Rates Commission. I received approval (attached for your reference to
this DocuSign envelope) but got distracted by other more pressing items and never routed the
termination...until now. Please sign this Termination of the ILA creating the Mid-Columbia Cable Rates
Commission, which can no longer exercise authority due to a 2015 FCC Ruling and Order that essentially
stripped local franchising authorities of their ability to regulate basic tier rates. It appears the Commission
never took any action in its nearly 30 years anyway.
Heather Kintzley
01/19/2022
X
X
X
942-7384
City Attorney
21-94
Contract No. ________
Termination of Mid-Columbia Regional Cable Commission Page 1
TERMINATION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
ESTABISHING THE
MID-COLUMBIA REGIONAL CABLE COMMISSION
This Termination of the April 4, 1994 Interlocal Agreement establishing the Mid-
Columbia Regional Cable Commission (hereinafter “Original Agreement”) is made and entered
into on this ____ day of January, 2022 by and between the cities of Richland, Kennewick and
Pasco.
I. Recitals
WHEREAS, the Mid-Columbia Regional Cable Commission was established in 1994 by
interlocal agreement between the cities of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland to regulate basic tier
cable rates in jurisdictions where effective competition was not present; and
WHEREAS, at the time the Commission was established, the Federal Communication
Commission’s (FCC) rules provided for a presumption that markets were not competitive, and
cable operators had to challenge the local franchising authority’s determination that it was
appropriate to regulate basic tier cable rates by providing proof to the FCC that effective
competition did in fact exist; and
WHEREAS, despite being in existence for nearly 30 years, there is no evidence in the record that
the Mid-Columbia Regional Cable Commission ever took any action under its authority; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the FCC determined that, given the pervasiveness of other types of
providers such as Dish and DirectTV, effective competition should now be assumed, subject to
evidence to the contrary (i.e., a rebuttable presumption). Through a Report and Order (attached),
the FCC held that, based on the rebuttable presumption of effective competition, each
franchising authority will be prohibited from regulating basic cable rates unless it successfully
demonstrates that the cable system is not subject to Competing Provider Effective Competition;
and
WHEREAS, the FCC Order undercuts any authority the Mid-Columbia Regional Cable
Commission has or had, making termination of the Commission appropriate; and
WHEREAS, Section V. of the Original Agreement provides that termination of the Original
Agreement establishing the Mid-Columbia Regional Cable Commission may occur by agreement
of all three cities or by any two of the three cities.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto that the Original Agreement
establishing the Mid-Columbia Regional Cable Commission is hereby terminated effective
immediately.
[Signature Page to Follow]
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
14th
Contract No. ________
Termination of Mid-Columbia Regional Cable Commission Page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Termination on the date first
written above.
CITY OF RICHLAND CITY OF KENNEWICK
____________________________ _____________________________
Jon Amundson, ICMA-CM Marie Mosley, City Manager
City Manager
Attest: Attest:
____________________________ _____________________________
Jennifer Rogers, City Clerk Terri Wright, City Clerk
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
____________________________ ______________________________
Heather Kintzley, City Attorney Lisa Beaton, City Attorney
CITY OF PASCO
_____________________________
Dave Zabell, City Manager
Attest:
_____________________________
Debby Barham, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________
Eric Ferguson, City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment to the Commission’s Rules
Concerning Effective Competition
Implementation of Section 111 of the STELA
Reauthorization Act
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 15-53
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: June 2, 2015 Released:June 3, 2015
By the Commission:Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly issuing separate
statements; Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing
separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1
II.BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................2
III.DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................6
A.Rebuttable Presumption that Cable Systems are Subject to Effective Competition ........................6
B.Implementation of Section 111 of STELAR..................................................................................13
C.Procedures to Implement the New Presumption ............................................................................17
D.Current Certifications and Pending Effective Competition Proceedings.......................................27
IV.PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................31
A.Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ............................................................................................31
B.Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.........................................................................32
C.Congressional Review Act.............................................................................................................33
D.Additional Information ..................................................................................................................34
V.ORDERING CLAUSES.......................................................................................................................35
APPENDIX A –Final Rules
APPENDIX B –Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I.INTRODUCTION
1.In this Report and Order (“Order”), we improve and expedite the effective competition
process by adopting a rebuttable presumption that cable operators are subject to “Effective Competition.”1
Specifically, we presume that cable operators are subject to what is commonly referred to as “Competing
Provider Effective Competition.”2 As a result,each franchising authority3 will be prohibited from
1 Effective Competition is a term of art that the statute defines by application of specific tests.
2 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 543(a)(2), (l)(1)(B); infra ¶ 2.
3 A “franchising authority” is “any governmental entity empowered by Federal, State, or local law to grant a
franchise.” See 47 U.S.C.§ 522(10).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
2
regulating basic cable rates4 unless it successfully demonstrates that the cable system is not subject to
Competing Provider Effective Competition. This change is justified by the fact that Direct Broadcast
Satellite (“DBS”) service is ubiquitous today and that DBS providers have captured almost 34 percent of
multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”)subscribers.5 This Order also implements section
111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELAR”), which directs the Commission to adopt a
streamlined Effective Competition process for small cable operators.6 By adopting a rebuttable
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition,we update our Effective Competition rules,
for the first time in over 20 years,to reflect the current MVPD marketplace,7 reduce the regulatory
burdens on all cable operators,especially small operators,8 and more efficiently allocate the
Commission’s resources.
II.BACKGROUND
2.In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (“1992 Cable
Act”), Congress adopted a “preference for competition,” pursuant to which a franchising authority may
regulate basic cable service tier rates and equipment only if the Commission finds that the cable system is
not subject to Effective Competition.9 Section 623(l)(1) of the Act defines the four types of Effective
Competition, as follows:
Low Penetration Effective Competition, which is present if fewer than 30 percent of
the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of a cable system;10
Competing Provider Effective Competition, which is present if the franchise area is
(i) served by at least two unaffiliated MVPDs each of which offers comparable video
programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; and (ii)
the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs
other than the largest MVPD exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise
area;11
4 See id. § 543(b)(7)(A).
5 See infra Section II.
6 See Pub. L. No. 113-200, § 111, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014); 47 U.S.C. § 543(o)(1) (“Not later than 180 days after
December 4, 2014, the Commission shall complete a rulemaking to establish a streamlined process for filing of an
effective competition petition pursuant to this section for small cable operators, particularly those who serve
primarily rural areas.”). Accordingly, this rulemaking must be completed by June 2, 2015.
7 See Exec. Order No. 13,579, § 2, 76 Fed. Reg. 41,587 (July 14, 2011) (“To facilitate the periodic review of
existing significant regulations, independent regulatory agencies should consider how best to promote retrospective
analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned”); Final Plan for Retrospective
Analysis of Existing Rules,2012 WL 1851335 (May 18, 2012).
8 Congress applied the definition of “small cable operator” as set forth in section 623(m)(2) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the
aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities
whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” See 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2), (o)(3).
9 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992);
47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2)(A). This Order contains references to the Commission’s role in the franchising authority
certification process. Although our rules refer to the Commission as having these responsibilities, the Media Bureau
has delegated authority to act on certification matters pursuant to the rules established by the Commission, and in
practice the Media Bureau evaluates certifications and related pleadings on behalf of the Commission. See 47
C.F.R. § 0.61.
10 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(1).
11 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
3
Municipal Provider Effective Competition, which is present if an MVPD operated by
the franchising authority for that franchise area offers video programming to at least
50 percent of the households in that franchise area;12 and
Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) Effective Competition, which is present if a local
exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any MVPD using the facilities of such carrier or
its affiliate) offers video programming services directly to subscribers by any means
(other than direct-to-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
programming services provided by the unaffiliated cable operator in that area.13
Section 623 of the Act does not permit franchising authorities to regulate any cable service rates other
than the basic service tier rate and equipment used to receive the signal.14
3.In 1993, when the Commission implemented the statute’s Effective Competition
provisions, the existence of Effective Competition was the exception rather than the rule. Incumbent
cable operators had captured approximately 95 percent of MVPD subscribers.15 In the vast majority of
franchise areas only a single cable operator provided service16 and those operators had “substantial market
power at the local distribution level.”17 DBS service had not yet entered the market,18 and local exchange
carriers (“LECs”), such as Verizon and AT&T, had not yet entered the MVPD business in any significant
way.19 Against this backdrop, the Commission adopted a presumption that cable systems are not subject
to Effective Competition,20 and it provided that a franchising authority that wanted to regulate a cable
operator’s basic service tier rates must be certified by filing FCC Form 328 with the Commission.21 A
cable operator that wishes to challenge the franchising authority’s right to regulate its basic service tier
rate bears the burden of rebutting the presumption and demonstrating that it is in fact subject to Effective
Competition.22
12 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(3).
13 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(4). In 1996 Congress added LEC Effective Competition to the
statute. See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 115, § 301(b)(3) (1996).
14 See 47 U.S.C. § 543. See also id. § 543(c)(4) (sunsetting upper tier rate regulation for cable programming
services provided after March 31, 1999).
15 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Third
Annual Report, 12 FCC Rcd 4358, 4495 (App. F) (1997).
16 Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of 1992, First
Report, 9 FCC Rcd 7442, 7449, ¶ 15 (1994).
17 Id.at 7449, ¶ 13.
18 DIRECTV, the first DBS entrant, began offering service in 1994. Id.at 7474, ¶ 63.
19 Id.at 7495, ¶¶ 103-04.
20 See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate
Regulation, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5669-70, ¶ 42 (1993)
(“1993 Rate Order”); 47 C.F.R. § 76.906 (“In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are
presumed not to be subject to effective competition.”).
21 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.910. Form 328 is available at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form328/328.pdf.
22 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.907, 76.911.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
4
4.As described in the NPRM in this proceeding, the MVPD marketplace has changed in
ways that substantially impact the test for Competing Provider Effective Competition.23 After the NPRM
was released, the Commission adopted its most recent video competition report containing many of the
same statistics cited in the NPRM. Specifically, the video competition report reached the following
conclusions, among others:
Slight increase in DBS subscribership. The number of DBS subscribers increased
from year-end 2012 (34.1 million, or 33.8 percent of MVPD subscribers) to year-end
2013 (34.2 million, or 33.9 percent of MVPD subscribers).24
Significant increase in telephone MVPD subscribership. The number of telephone
MVPD subscribers increased from year-end 2012 (9.9 million, or 9.8 percent of
MVPD subscribers) to year-end 2013 (11.3 million, or 11.2 percent of MVPD
subscribers).25
Widespread availability of DBS video service. DIRECTV provides local broadcast
channels to 197 markets representing over 99 percent of U.S. homes, and DISH
Network provides local broadcast channels to all 210 markets.26
Consumer access to multiple MVPDs. Approximately 99.7 percent of homes in the
U.S. have access to at least three MVPDs, and nearly 35 percent have access to at
least four MVPDs.27
As described in the NPRM, the Commission has found Effective Competition in more than 99.5
percent of the communities evaluated since the start of 2013.28 As stated in the NPRM, the
Commission has issued affirmative findings of Effective Competition in the country’s largest
cities,in its suburban areas,and in its rural areas where subscription to DBS is particularly high.29
5.The Commission released the NPRM in this proceeding seeking comment on adopting a
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition. The Commission sought to establish a
streamlined Effective Competition process for small cable operators and to adopt policies that would
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the industry as a whole while ensuring the most efficient use of
Commission resources.30
III.DISCUSSION
A.Rebuttable Presumption that Cable Systems are Subject to Effective Competition
6.We adopt a rebuttable presumption that cable operators are subject to Competing
Provider Effective Competition, finding that such an approach is warranted by market changes since the
23 Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of Section 111 of the
STELA Reauthorization Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 2561, 2565-67, ¶¶ 6-7 (2015)
(“NPRM”).
24 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Sixteenth
Report, 30 FCC Rcd 3253, 3256, ¶ 2 (2015) (“16th Annual Video Competition Report”).
25 Id.
26 Id.at 3300-01, ¶¶ 112-113.
27 Id.at 3267, ¶ 31.
28 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2567, ¶ 7.
29 Id.at 2566-67, ¶ 7.
30 Id.at 2567, ¶ 7.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
5
Commission adopted the presumption of no Effective Competition over 20 years ago.31 When the
Commission adopted the presumption of no Effective Competition, incumbent cable operators had
approximately a 95 percent market share of MVPD subscribers and only a single cable operator served
the local franchise area in the vast majority of franchise areas, which is very different from today’s
marketplace.32 As explained above, the two-pronged test for a finding of Competing Provider Effective
Competition requires that (1) the franchise area is “served by at least two unaffiliated [MVPDs] each of
which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise
area;” and (2) “the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by [MVPDs] other
than the largest [MVPD] exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.”33 Below we explain
31 See, e.g., Comments of the American Cable Association at 3-5, 8-9 (“ACA Comments”); Comments of ITTA –
The Voice of Mid-Size Communications Companies at 1-5 (“ITTA Comments”); Comments of the National Cable
& Telecommunications Association at 1, 4-6 (“NCTA Comments”); Reply Comments of the American Cable
Association at 1-2 (“ACA Reply”); Reply Comments of Cablevision Systems Corporation at 1, 5-6 (“Cablevision
Reply”); Reply Comments of the Free State Foundation at 1-4 and Appendix (“FSF Reply”); Reply Comments of
the National Cable & Telecommunications Association at 1-4 (“NCTA Reply”); Letter from Seth A. Davidson,
Counsel for American Cable Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Apr. 22, 2015) (“ACA Apr.
22 Ex Parte Letter”); Letter from Samuel L. Feder, Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc., to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Apr. 23, 2015); Letter from Samuel L. Feder, Counsel for Cablevision Systems
Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2 (Apr. 23, 2015); Letter from Rick Chessen, Senior Vice
President, Law and Regulatory Policy, NCTA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 14, 2015) (“NCTA
May 14 Ex Parte Letter”).
32 See supra Section II.
33 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B). The statute establishes the applicable test for each type of Effective Competition, and
we thus cannot modify the tests, as some commenters request, nor can we base an Effective Competition decision on
vague allegations of large cable operators’ dominance. See Comments of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel
at 7-10 (“NJ Rate Counsel Comments”); Comments of Public Knowledge at 1-2 and 5, n. 10 (“Public Knowledge
Comments”); Reply Comments of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable at 4 (“MDTC
Reply”); Letter from Cheryl A. Leanza, Policy Advisory, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication Inc., to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 8, 2015) (“UCC OC May 8 Ex Parte Letter”) (claiming that the
Commission should consider the cost of broadband as part of its analysis); Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
to the FCC, Advisory Recommendation No. 2015-7, at 4-5 (filed May 15, 2015) (“IAC Recommendation”); Letter
from Public Knowledge et al. to The Honorable Tom Wheeler et al., at 6 (May 26, 2015) (“Public Knowledge et al.
May 26 Ex Parte Letter”) (questioning “how the availability of high-speed broadband has altered the competitive
equation”). In addition, while some commenters state that the basic service tier rate increases more rapidly in
communities with a finding of Effective Competition than in those without such a finding, we emphasize that the
average rate for basic service is actually lower in communities with a finding of Effective Competition than in those
without a finding, demonstrating that basic service tier rates remain reasonable where there is a Commission finding
of Effective Competition. See Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992: Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and
Equipment, Report on Cable Industry Prices, 29 FCC Rcd 14895, 14902, ¶ 15 (2014) (“2014 Cable Price Report”);
Comments of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable at 2, 13-14 (“MDTC Comments”);
NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 3, 6; Reply Comments of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers
and Advisors at 6 (“NATOA Reply”); Reply Comments of the Staff of the Office of Cable Television for the New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities at 7-8 (“NJ OCTV Reply”). See also 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(1) (“The Commission
shall, by regulation, ensure that the rates for the basic service tier are reasonable.”); Public Knowledge Comments at
3 (expressing concern about the impact of a presumption of Effective Competition on cable rates); Letter from Gus
K. West, President, The Hispanic Institute, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (Apr. 30, 2015) (same);
Letter from Michael J. Scurato, Policy Director, National Hispanic Media Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 12, 2015) (same) (“NHMC May 12 Ex Parte Letter”); Letter from Rev. Sheldon
Williams, President, National Black Religious Broadcasters, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (May 21,
2015) (same); Public Knowledge et al. May 26 Ex Parte Letter at 4, 6 (same); Letter from Jennifer Johnson,
Counsel for NBC Television Affiliates and CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 27, 2015) (same) (“Affiliates May 27 Ex Parte Letter”); Letter from Gerald J. Waldron,
Counsel to Univision Communications Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 29, 2015) (same)
(continued….)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
6
how the current state of competition in the MVPD marketplace, particularly with regard to DBS,supports
a rebuttable presumption that the two-part test is met.
7.At the outset,we note that out of the 1,440 Community Unit Identification Numbers
(“CUIDs”)34 for which the Commission has made an Effective Competition determination since the start
of 2013, it found that 1,433 CUIDs (or more than 99.5 percent of the CUIDs evaluated) have satisfied one
of the statutory Effective Competition tests.35 For the vast majority of the CUIDs evaluated (1,150, or
approximately 80 percent), this decision was based on Competing Provider Effective Competition.36
Franchising authorities filed oppositions to only 18 (or less than 8 percent) of the total of 228 Effective
(Continued from previous page)
(“Univision May 29 Ex Parte Letter”); Letter from Delara Derakhshani, Policy Counsel, Consumers Union, to The
Honorable Tom Wheeler et al.at 1-2 (June 1, 2015) (same). In addition, contrary to NAB’s assertion, there is no
evidence in the record that a finding of Effective Competition causes cable operators to increase their other fees or
equipment rental charges. See Letter from Rick Kaplan, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Legal and
Regulatory Affairs, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 22, 2015) (“NAB May 22 Ex Parte
Letter”). We also clarify that while commenters characterize their statistics as a comparison between communities
with Effective Competition and communities without Effective Competition, the statistics in fact involve
communities where the Commission has made a finding of Effective Competition and communities where the
Commission has yet to make such a finding even though Effective Competition may be present. See 2014 Cable
Price Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 14897, ¶ 2 (“For purposes of this survey, we have defined all cable operators that do
not have an FCC finding of effective competition as ‘noncompetitive’. In many such communities, the incumbent
cable operator could possibly meet the test yet for various reasons has not petitioned the Commission for an
effective competition finding . . . .”).
34 A CUID is a unique identification code that the Commission assigns a single cable operator within a community
to represent an area that the cable operator services. A CUID often includes a single franchise area, but it sometimes
includes a larger or smaller area. CUID data is the available data that most closely approximates franchise areas.
35 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2566, ¶ 7. The IAC’s suggestion that the Commission has made incorrect Effective
Competition findings is unsubstantiated. IAC Recommendation at 2-3. We clarify that any Commission grant of an
Effective Competition petition, including an unopposed petition, is based on satisfaction of the statutory Effective
Competition tests. Id.at 3.
36 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2566, ¶ 7. Of the total number of CUIDs in which the Commission granted a request for a
finding of Effective Competition during this timeframe, 229 (nearly 16 percent) were granted due to Low
Penetration Effective Competition, and 54 (nearly 4 percent) were granted due to LEC Effective Competition. None
of the requests granted during this timeframe was based on Municipal Provider Effective Competition. Where a
finding of Effective Competition was based on one of the other types of Effective Competition besides Competing
Provider Effective Competition, it does not necessarily mean that Competing Provider Effective Competition was
not present. Rather, it means that the pleadings raised one of the other types of Effective Competition, and the
Commission thus evaluated Effective Competition in that context. But see Comments of the National Association of
Broadcasters at 16, n. 8 (“NAB Comments”) (stating NAB’s expectation that a cable operator who files an Effective
Competition petition based on one of the other tests also would allege the presence of Competing Provider Effective
Competition if supported by the facts). In fact, cable operators often file Effective Competition petitions arguing
that they are subject to more than one type of Effective Competition within a single franchise area. In such cases, if
the Bureau finds that a cable operator has met its burden under one of the statutory tests, it forgoes making a finding
under the alternate tests for Effective Competition. See,e.g., Time Warner Cable Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 28 FCC Rcd 16299, 16304,n.45 (MB,2013) (“Because we find that Time Warner is subject to competing
provider effective competition in El Cenizo and Rio Bravo, we need not address its claim that it is also subject to
‘low penetration’effective competition there.”); Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4901, 4905, n. 34 (MB,2011) (“Comcast also claims to be subject to low penetration effective
competition in 3 Attachment A Communities, Bolton Town, Edwards Town, and Hinds County. We need not rule
on these claims because we have found that Comcast is subject to competing provider effective competition in
them.”)(citation omitted); Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC
Rcd 3910, 3915,n. 43 (MB,2011) (“Cox claims that it is subject to LEC effective competition in the Communities
of Chesapeake, Hampton, Langley Air Force Base, and Portsmouth. We need not adjudicate these claims because
Cox has satisfied the competing provider test in those Communities.”)(citation omitted).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
7
Competition petitions considered during this timeframe.37 Some commenters object to an analysis of data
based on filed Effective Competition petitions, asserting that cable operators do not file petitions where
they know the filings would be denied based on a lack of Effective Competition.38 However, given data
that indicates a ubiquitous DBS presence nationwide,39 we have no reason to believe that the number of
Effective Competition petitions granted in recent years is not representative of the marketplace on the
whole. Marketplace realities cause us to believe that in nearly all communities where cable operators
have declined to file Effective Competition petitions, Effective Competition is present but the cable
operator has not found it worthwhile to undertake the expense of filing an Effective Competition petition,
perhaps because the vast majority of franchising authorities have chosen not to regulate rates despite the
existing presumption of no Effective Competition.40
8.With regard to the first prong of the Competing Provider Effective Competition test as
related to the new presumption, we find that the ubiquitous nationwide presence of DBS providers,
DIRECTV and DISH Network,presumptively satisfies the requirement that the franchise area be served
by two unaffiliated MVPDs each of which offers comparable programming to at least 50 percent of the
households in the franchise area. Neither DIRECTV nor DISH Network is affiliated with each other.41
To offer comparable programming, the Commission’s rules provide that a competing MVPD must offer
at least 12 channels of video programming, including at least one channel of non-broadcast service
programming.42 The programming lineups of DIRECTV and DISH Network satisfy this requirement.43
37 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2566, ¶ 7. The IAC argues that a franchising authority may not oppose an Effective
Competition petition for various reasons, including administrative delays. See IAC Recommendation at 2; Public
Knowledge et al. May 26 Ex Parte Letter at 4. We emphasize, however, that the exceedingly small number of
opposed petitions is just one of many factors that support a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective
Competition, as detailed above.
38 See MDTC Comments at 3, 5, 7; NAB Comments at 15-16; NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 6-7; Reply Comments
of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates at 6
(“Consumer Advocates Reply”); Reply Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters at 13 (“NAB
Reply”); NATOA Reply at 3; NJ OCTV Reply at 5.
39 See supra ¶ 4 (explaining that the MVPD marketplace has changed in ways that substantially impact the test for
Competing Provider Effective Competition).
40 See supra Section II; 2014 Cable Price Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 14897, ¶ 2 (“[I]n the communities without an
effective competition finding, only 13 percent of subscribers are in areas where the [franchising authorities] elect to
regulate the price of basic service.”); ACA Reply at i-ii (“The evidence also shows that even among the
communities where there has not yet been a formal finding of effective competition, franchising authorities are
choosing not to regulate, implicitly recognizing that rates are being controlled by competitive market forces.”). But
see Letter from Erin L. Dozier, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Legal and Regulatory Affairs,
National Association of Broadcasters, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2, n. 6 (May 15, 2015) (“NAB May
15 Ex Parte Letter”) (claiming that because the cable price survey is based on a random sampling of cable operators,
it may not be conclusive). For a further discussion of the burdens currently faced by cable operators, see infra
Section III.C.
41 We recognize that DIRECTV and AT&T Inc. have filed applications for consent to assign or transfer control of
licenses and authorizations. See MB Docket No. 14-90. That proceeding remains pending. Even if the DIRECTV
and AT&T applications are granted, DIRECTV and DISH Network still will not be affiliated with each other and
both of them may be considered as competing providers for purposes of the Competing Provider Effective
Competition test. See Public Knowledge et al. May 26 Ex Parte Letter at 5 (questioning how a merger of AT&T
and DIRECTV would affect application of the Competing Provider Effective Competition test).
42 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g). The NPRM did not seek comment on revisiting the meaning of “comparable”
programming in this context, and thus we reject commenters’ requests that we do so here. See NJ Rate Counsel
Comments at 11-14;Public Knowledge Comments at 3, 5-7; Letter from Steve Traylor, Executive Director,
NATOA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 18, 2015). See also NCTA Reply at 9 (characterizing
these “unsupported” arguments as an attempt “to manufacture new requirements”).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
8
In addition, the widespread presence of DIRECTV and DISH Network justifies a rebuttable presumption
that they each offer MVPD service to at least 50 percent of households in all franchise areas. As stated
above, DIRECTV provides local broadcast channels to 197 markets representing over 99 percent of U.S.
homes, and DISH Network provides local broadcast channels to all 210 markets.44 In the most recent
video competition report, the Commission assumed that DBS MVPDs are available to all homes in the
U.S., while recognizing that this slightly overstates the actual availability of DBS.45 Further, the
Commission has held in hundreds of Competing Provider Effective Competition decisions that the
presence of DIRECTV and DISH Network satisfies the first prong of the test.46 Notably, the Commission
has never determined that the presence of DIRECTV and DISH Network failed to satisfy the first prong
of the competing provider test.
9.With regard to the second prong of the test, we will presume that more than 15 percent of
the households in a franchise area subscribe to programming services offered by MVPDs other than the
largest MVPD. Based on the data presented above, on a nationwide basis competitors to incumbent cable
operators have captured approximately 34 percent of U.S. households, or more than double the percentage
needed to satisfy the second prong of the competing provider test.47 Nationally, DBS service alone has
close to twice the necessary subscribership.48 Further, NCTA has found that competing MVPDs have a
penetration rate of more than 15 percent in each of the 210 Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”) in the
United States, and most DMAs have a DBS penetration rate above 20 percent.49 NAB argues that a
presumption based on national market share data lacks a rational nexus to the question of whether more
than 15 percent of the households in a specific franchise area actually subscribe to programming services
offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD.50 We disagree, finding instead that,as NCTA states,
“an average figure is not conclusive evidence of the specific penetration in every community” but “it
undeniably supports the Commission’s proposed rebuttable presumption”and “is a strong predictor that
competitors have garnered far in excess of the market share Congress deemed necessary to free cable
(Continued from previous page)
43 See www.directv.com/guide; www.dish.com/info/channels-list/.
44 Supra ¶ 4 (citing 16th Annual Video Competition Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 3300-01, ¶¶ 112-113). Even in the 13
markets where DIRECTV does not provide local broadcast channels, its channel lineup still satisfies the comparable
programming requirement because its channel lineup contains substantially more than 12 channels including at least
one channel of non-broadcast service programming.
45 16th Annual Video Competition Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 3264, n. 57 (explaining that physical features, such as tall
buildings or trees, can prevent some homes from receiving DBS signals).
46 See, e.g., supra ¶ 7; Six Unopposed Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 5321 (MB, 2014); Fifty-Five Unopposed Petitions for Determination of Effective
Competition, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 3140 (MB, 2014); Time Warner Entertainment-
Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 16776 (MB, 2013).
47 See supra ¶ 4. At year-end 2013 there were 34.2 million DBS subscribers and 11.3 million telephone MVPD
subscribers, which yields a total of 45.5 million subscribers to competitors to incumbent cable operators. SNL
Kagan estimates that there were 133.8 million households in this country in 2013. See
http://www.snl.com/interactivex/MultichannelIndustryBenchmarks.aspx?startYear=2012&endYear=2013 (visited
Mar.31, 2014). If we divide 45.5 million by 133.8 million, the data shows that competitors to incumbent cable
operators have captured approximately 34 percent of U.S. households.
48 See supra ¶ 4. If we divide 34.2 million by 133.8 million, the data shows that DBS operators have captured
approximately 25.6 percent of U.S. households. We note that DIRECTV is the second largest MVPD in the U.S.
and DISH Network is the third largest MVPD. See 16th Annual Video Competition Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 3262-63,
¶ 26.
49 See NCTA Comments at 5; NCTA Reply at 2 (citing to NCTA’s analysis of SNL Kagan data).
50 See NAB Comments at 13-16. See also MDTC Reply at 2-3, 6-7.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
9
operators from the vestiges of rate regulation.”51 The level of competing MVPD penetration in all of the
DMAs, along with their ubiquitous service availability, justifies placing the burden on franchising
authorities to show a lack of Effective Competition. Under the rebuttable presumption adopted in this
Order, local franchising authorities will be able to attempt to demonstrate that the Competing Provider
Effective Competition test is not met in a given area.52 Thus, we will not be basing our finding on the
nationwide statistics alone.
10.For all of the above reasons, we conclude that adopting a rebuttable presumption of
Competing Provider Effective Competition is consistent with the current state of the video marketplace.
We do not, however, find that market changes since the adoption of the original presumption would
support a presumption that any of the other Effective Competition tests (low penetration, municipal
provider, or LEC) is met. Although some commenters have asked that we also establish a rebuttable
presumption of LEC Effective Competition in any franchise area where an LEC MVPD offers video
service,53 we decline to do so at this time. The record lacks evidence to support a presumption that the
service area of an LEC MVPD substantially overlaps that of the incumbent cable operator in a sufficient
number of franchise areas where an LEC MVPD offers video service to make such a presumption
supportable.54 Accordingly, our presumption of Effective Competition is limited to Competing Provider
Effective Competition. Absent a demonstration to the contrary, we will continue to presume that cable
systems are not subject to Low Penetration, Municipal Provider, or LEC Effective Competition.55
11.Adoption of the presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition is consistent
with section 623 of the Act, which prohibits a franchising authority from regulating basic cable rates “[i]f
the Commission finds that a cable system is subject to effective competition.”56 Contrary to the
suggestion of some commenters,57 we see no statutory bar to applying a nationwide rebuttable
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition in making this finding.58 In fact, the NPRM in
the proceeding implementing section 623 of the Act initially proposed to require franchising authorities to
demonstrate that Effective Competition was not present in the franchise area, explaining that such an
approach would be reasonable because the Act “makes the absence of effective competition a prerequisite
to regulators’ legal authority over basic rates.”59 Specifically, the statute provides that “[i]f the
Commission finds that a cable system is not subject to effective competition, the rates for the provision of
basic cable service shall be subject to regulation by a franchising authority, or by the Commission . . . .”60
Although the Commission ultimately took a different course, that decision was based on what was most
efficient given the state of the marketplace at the time the presumption was adopted and it was not
mandated by statute.61 Given the state of the video marketplace today,62 we find that it is appropriate to
51 See NCTA Reply at 2.
52 See infra Section III.C.
53 See ACA Comments at 10-11; NCTA Comments at 9; ACA Reply at i; Cablevision Reply at 3-5.
54 See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, 14
FCC Rcd 5296, 5303, ¶ 10 (1999).
55 But see NCTA Comments at 9 (asserting without support that franchising authorities also should bear the burden
of rebutting a presumption of Low Penetration and Municipal Provider Effective Competition).
56 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2).
57 See NAB Comments at 7-13; NAB Reply at 2, 10-12; NATOA Reply at 2.
58 See ACA Comments at 6-8; Cablevision Reply at 5.
59 See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992; Rate Regulation,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 510, 515, ¶ 17 (1992). See also ACA Comments at 2.
60 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2).
61 See ACA Comments at 6-7; NCTA Comments at 7; Cablevision Reply at 5.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
10
presume the presence of Competing Provider Effective Competition on a nationwide basis, provided that
franchising authorities have an opportunity to rebut that presumption and demonstrate that the Competing
Provider Effective Competition test is not met in a specific area. The franchising authority’s ability to file
a revised Form 328 pursuant to the procedures discussed below63 will ensure that the Commission will
continue to receive evidence regarding a specific franchise area where the franchising authority deems it
relevant.64 The fact that Effective Competition decisions apply to specific franchise areas does not
preclude the Commission from adopting a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective
Competition today based on the pervasive competition to cable from other MVPDs, just as it did not
prevent the Commission from adopting a rebuttable presumption of no Effective Competition based on
cable’s national 95 percent share of the MVPD marketplace in 1993.65 In the NPRM, we sought comment
on whether there were certain geographic areas in which we should not adopt a presumption of
Competing Provider Effective Competition.66 No commenter addressed this issue, and thus we will not
adopt different rules for any specific geographic areas.
12.We are not persuaded by commenters who argue that we should not adopt a rebuttable
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition because of the potential impact of findings of
Effective Competition on the basic service tier requirement found in section 623 of the Act. Several
commenters argue that our action would enable cable operators to move broadcast stations that elect
retransmission consent and public, educational, and governmental access (“PEG”) channels to a higher
tier, leading to higher consumer prices.67 If a finding of Effective Competition results in elimination of
the basic service tier requirement --a statutory interpretation issue that we do not address here --that
conclusion would apply not only in communities where the new presumption of Effective Competition is
not successfully rebutted but also in the thousands of communities in which we have already issued
findings of Effective Competition. Despite these widespread findings of Effective Competition,
commenters have not pointed to a single instance in which cable operators have even attempted to move
broadcast stations or PEG channels off the basic service tier.68 NAB argues that cable operators may not
(Continued from previous page)
62 See supra Section II.
63 See infra Section III.C.
64 See NAB Comments at 10-11; NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 6.
65 See ACA Reply at 5.
66 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2569, ¶ 11.
67 See Comments of the Alliance for Community Media at 1-3; Comments of American Community Television at 3-
9; NAB Comments at 25; Comments of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors at
4; Reply Comments of American Community Television at 1-4; Consumer Advocates Reply at 4-5; MDTC Reply at
7; Letter from James L. Winston, President, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (May 6, 2015) (“NABOB May 6 Ex Parte Letter”); Letter from Tracy Rosenberg,
Executive Director, Media Alliance, and Paul Goodman, Legal Counsel, Greenlining Institute, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (May 7, 2015) (“Media Alliance/Greenlining Institute May 7 Ex Parte Letter”);
NHMC May 12 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Letter from George Tourville, Mayor of Inver Grove Heights, MN, Chair of
NDC4 Cable Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2 (May 14, 2015) (“NDC4 May 14 Ex Parte
Letter”); Affiliates May 27 Ex Parte Letter at 1; Univision May 29 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
68 See also ACA Reply at 9-12, NCTA Reply at 10-11; Letter from Craig A. Gilley, Counsel for American Cable
Association,to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2 (Apr. 16, 2015) (“ACA Apr. 16 Ex Parte Letter”); NCTA
May 14 Ex Parte Letter at 2. Similarly, while the IAC contends that consumers will be harmed because the uniform
pricing provision and the tier buy-through provision do not apply following a finding of Effective Competition, they
have not pointed to any instances of cable operators in the thousands of communities with Effective Competition
findings using this flexibility to the detriment of subscribers in these communities. See IAC Recommendation at 3;
47 C.F.R. §§ 76.984, 76.921. The IAC also claims that “use of public rights of ways by [Satellite Master Antenna
Television (“SMATV”)] operators serving individual properties may be allowed if there is a finding of effective
competition.” IAC Recommendation at 3; 47 C.F.R. § 76.501. IAC has failed to explain the significance of this or
(continued….)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
11
have moved broadcast stations or PEG channels to a higher tier in communities with a finding of
Effective Competition at least in part because they do not wish to do so on a fragmented “patchwork”
basis69 but they have provided no support for this assertion. Moreover, a patchwork of communities with
and without Effective Competition will continue to exist after the adoption of this Order if any franchising
authorities are able to rebut the new presumption and remain certified. We thus find that the concerns
expressed by commenters in this regard are unpersuasive. Moreover, they do not speak to the key issue in
this proceeding: whether maintaining a presumption of no Effective Competition is consistent with the
current state of the MVPD marketplace. Accordingly, we do not believe that they provide a sound basis
to retain rules that are no longer justified by marketplace realities and that place unwarranted burdens on
cable operators and the Commission.
B.Implementation of Section 111 of STELAR
13.For the reasons stated above, section 623 of the Act provides the Commission with ample
authority to adopt a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition for both large
and small cable operators. However, additional support for our decision today is found in STELAR.
Specifically, we conclude that adopting a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective
Competition fully effectuates the Commission’s responsibilities under section 111 of STELAR.70 Section
111 directs the Commission “to establish a streamlined process for filing of an effective competition
petition pursuant to this section for small cable operators, particularly those who serve primarily rural
areas.”71 The new presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition will establish a streamlined
process for all cable operators, including small operators, by reallocating the burden of providing
evidence of Effective Competition in a manner that better comports with the current state of the
marketplace.72 The existing presumption of no Effective Competition requires cable operators to produce
information about competing providers’ service areas and numbers of subscribers, and to petition the
Commission for an affirmative finding of the requisite competition in particular franchise areas.73
Changing the presumption –which is merely a procedural device –will streamline the process by shifting
the burden of producing evidence with respect to Effective Competition. Under our modified rule,
franchising authorities remain free to rebut the presumption by presenting community-specific evidence,
which the cable operator would then have the burden to overcome based on its own evidence.74 The new
(Continued from previous page)
why such a possibility would be a reason to refrain from updating our processes to reflect market realities. Further,
a SMATV issue has not manifested itself in the thousands of communities that the Commission has already
determined are subject to Effective Competition. We also emphasize that both the prohibition against negative
option billing and cable customer service standards, as a general matter, survive a finding of Effective Competition,
per Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., v. FCC, 56 F.3d 151, 192-196 (D.C. Cir. 1995). See IAC
Recommendation at 3; NAB May 22 Ex Parte Letter at 2; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.981, 76.309.
69 NAB May 15 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
70 Pub. L. No. 113-200, § 111, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014).
71 47 U.S.C. §543(o)(1).
72 See ACA Comments at 10 (“adopting [a presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition] would
conserve not only the resources of cable operators, but also of franchising authorities and the Commission”); ITTA
Comments at 2 (a rebuttable presumption that cable operators are subject to Effective Competition “would be
consistent with the policy of the Commission and current Administration of modifying and streamlining rules that
are outmoded or excessively burdensome, and would appropriately implement the [STELAR] mandate that the
Commission establish a streamlined effective competition process for small cable operators”)(footnotes omitted).
See also ACA Reply at 1.
73 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.907 (a cable operator may file a petition for a determination of Effective Competition with
evidence that Effective Competition exists in the franchise area; if such evidence is not otherwise available, cable
operators may request from a competitor information regarding the competitor’s reach and number of subscribers).
74 See NCTA Reply at 8; ACA Comments at 7.See also 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
12
process is streamlined for cable operators because they will be required to file only in response to a
showing by a franchising authority that an operator does not face Competing Provider Effective
Competition in the franchise area.75 The burden would then shift to the cable operator to prove Effective
Competition. As ACA states:
Despite widespread and obvious competition, many cable operators, particularly small operators,
have not availed themselves of effective competition relief because of the burdens of overcoming
the current presumption against effective competition. These burdens include the costs of
purchasing the required zip code and competing provider penetration information, preparing a
formal legal filing for submission to the Commission, paying a filing fee, and then waiting an
uncertain amount of time for a decision. Congress recognized these burdens when it enacted
Section 111 of STELAR and adoption of the Commission’s proposal is the most effective and
rational way to reduce these burdens and ensure that cable operators of all sizes that face effective
competition obtain the relief to which they are entitled.76
14.We agree with commenters that there is no statutory restriction on extending the same
revised rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition to all cable systems.77
Section 111 of STELAR directs the Commission to establish streamlined measures for small cable
operators within a certain deadline,78 but it “neither expands nor restricts the scope of the Commission’s
authority to administer the effective competition process.”79 As commenters observe, “reducing
regulatory burdens on all cable operators, large and small,” will ensure that Commission procedures
“reflect marketplace realities and allow for a more efficient allocation of Commission and industry
resources.”80
15.We recognize that STELAR provides that “[n]othing in this subsection shall be construed
to have any effect on the duty of a small cable operator to prove the existence of effective competition
under this section.”81 NAB argues that this provision ratifies the Commission’s placement of the burden
of proving Effective Competition on the cable operators, and prevents the Commission from shifting the
burden.82 We do not read this language as limiting the Commission’s authority to eliminate or modify the
presumption for cable operators, large or small. The Commission adopted the presumption of no
Effective Competition as a procedural mechanism,83 based in large part on the premise that “the vast
75 See NCTA Comments at 7.
76 See ACA Reply at ii. See also NCTA Comments at 2, 7 (“Shifting the burden of production to local franchising
authorities to show the lack of effective competition in those extremely rare cases where such competition is not
present, rather than requiring cable operators to bear the burden of production in the thousands of communities
where they face such competition, will reduce unnecessary costs on small cable operators”); Cablevision Reply at 6;
ITTA Comments at 7; FSF Reply at 4; Letter from Seth A. Davidson, Counsel for American Cable Association, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 26, 2015) (“In particular, we stressed that ACA’s members and other
small operators were being deterred from seeking regulatory relief (and regulatory parity with their competition) by
the costs associated with the current effective competition process and that the Commission’s proposal was
consistent with Congress’ intent in Section 111 of STELAR to streamline that process.”).
77 See ACA Comments at 8.
78 47 U.S.C. §543(o)(1). See NCTA Reply at 8.
79 See NCTA Reply at 8. See also ACA Comments at 8.
80 See ITTA Comments at 7.See also NCTA Reply at 8 (“Extending the same relief to all operators is entirely
reasonable, especially since the record contains no evidence that the level of competition varies in a community
based on size or other characteristics of the corporation operating the cable system.”).
81 47 U.S.C. § 543(o)(2).
82 NAB Comments at 22-23; NAB May 15 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
83 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
13
majority of cable systems” in 1993 were “not subject to effective competition.”84 The presumption was
never mandated by Congress, and there is nothing in STELAR’s provisions that suggests that Congress
intended to withdraw the Commission’s general rulemaking power to revisit its rules and modify or repeal
them if it finds such action is warranted.85 In the clause that NAB relies on, Congress merely disavows
any intent to alter or interfere with the Commission rule requiring proof of the existence of Effective
Competition, as applied to small cable operators. It does not require the Commission to maintain the
presumption of no Effective Competition. Rather, Congress only requires the Commission to streamline
the process for “small cable operators.” Thus, Congress did not “ratify” or lock in place the current
presumption. Indeed, if this provision were read to restrict the Commission from changing the
presumption for small operators, as NAB urges, it would have the perverse effect of permitting the
Commission to reduce burdens on larger operators but not on smaller ones, contrary to the clear intent and
narrow focus of section 111. Thus, we find unpersuasive NAB’s argument that section 111 of STELAR
prohibits the rule modifications adopted in this Order.86
16.In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on alternate streamlined procedures that
it could adopt for small cable operators pursuant to section 111.87 Some commenters proposed that we
could implement section 111 through small cable operator Effective Competition reforms other than
reversing the presumption, for example, by eliminating filing fees, automatically granting certain
petitions, adopting a time limit for Commission review, or otherwise streamlining existing Effective
Competition procedures.88 We have evaluated all of the alternate proposals set forth in the record and we
conclude that,while some are already implemented,89 others would not have a sufficient impact on the
84 See 1993 Rate Order,8 FCC Rcd at 5670, ¶ 43. See also id. at 5640, ¶ 10 (“We anticipate that the regulations we
adopt today will change over time. In accordance with the statute, we will review and monitor the effect of our
initial rate regulations on the cable industry and consumers, and refine and improve our rules as necessary.”).
85 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r).
86 See NAB Comments at 22; NAB Reply at 15. See also Public Knowledge Comments at 2-3.
87 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2570, ¶ 13.
88 See, e.g., ACA Comments at 14-15; MDTC Comments at 11-12, n. 46; NAB Comments at 23-24; Public
Knowledge Comments at 2-3; ACA Reply at vi; Letter from the National Association of Broadcasters et al. to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2-3 (Apr. 16, 2015) (“NAB et al. Apr. 16 Ex Parte Letter”); Letter from
Stephen Traylor, Executive Director/Legal Counsel, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (Apr. 17, 2015) (“NATOA Apr. 17 Ex Parte Letter”);
NABOB May 6 Ex Parte Letter at 1; UCC OC May 8 Ex Parte Letter at 1; Public Knowledge et al. May 26 Ex
Parte Letter at 1.
89 For example, NAB and others ask that we establish an electronic filing process, perhaps through the use of an
electronic form. NAB Comments at 24; NAB et al. Apr. 16 Ex Parte Letter at 3. We already require all Effective
Competition petitions to be filed electronically. See Media Bureau Announces Commencement of Mandatory
Electronic Filing for Cable Special Relief Petitions and Cable Show Cause Petitions via the Electronic Comment
Filing System, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 17150 (MB, Dec. 30, 2011) (“Effective January 3, 2012, the Commission
will no longer accept and consider new Cable Special Relief (CSR) and Cable Show Cause (CSC) petitions filed on
paper.”). NAB and others also ask that we relieve cable operators of the obligation to present evidence regarding
elements that are no longer in dispute, including in particular evidence regarding consumers’ awareness of the
availability of DBS service. NAB et al. Apr. 16 Ex Parte Letter at 2; NATOA Apr. 17 Ex Parte Letter at 1. The
Media Bureau has already addressed this issue by stating that a party may prove consumers’ awareness of the
availability of DBS service by providing evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area coupled with the
ubiquity of DBS service. See, e.g., ACA Reply at 14; Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership,
28 FCC Rcd at 16778, ¶ 6 (“The Commission has held that a party may use evidence of penetration rates in the
franchise area (the second part of the competing provider test discussed below) coupled with the ubiquity of DBS
services to show that consumers are reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service. The ‘comparable
programming’ element is met if a competing MVPD provider offers at least 12 channels of video programming,
including at least one channel of nonbroadcast service programming and is supported in this petition with citations
to the channel lineups for both DBS providers. Also undisputed is Time Warner’s assertion that both DBS providers
(continued….)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
14
costs that burden cable operators, particularly small cable operators,under the existing Effective
Competition regime, including the costs of purchasing data indicating what zip codes make up the local
franchising area, using the resulting list of zip codes to purchase penetration data,and preparing a formal
legal filing.90 Accordingly, we have concluded that adopting a rebuttable presumption of Competing
Provider Effective Competition is the best approach to streamline the process for small cable operators.
C.Procedures to Implement the New Presumption
17.In this section, we adopt new procedures to implement the rebuttable presumption of
Competing Provider Effective Competition. With certain exceptions discussed below,we adopt
procedures largely comparable to those discussed in the NPRM. In short, a franchising authority will
obtain certification to regulate a cable operator’s basic service tier and associated equipment by filing a
revised Form 328, which will include a demonstration rebutting the presumption of Competing Provider
Effective Competition. A cable operator may continue to oppose a Form 328 by filing a petition for
reconsideration of the form.
18.Specifically, as under our existing procedures, a franchising authority that seeks
certification to regulate a cable operator’s basic service tier and associated equipment will file Form 328.
We will revise Question 6 of that form to include a new Question 6a, which will state the new
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition. Question 6a will ask a franchising authority
to provide an attachment containing evidence adequate to satisfy its burden of rebutting the presumption
with specific evidence. A franchising authority may continue to rely on the current presumption that Low
Penetration, Municipal Provider, and LEC Effective Competition are not present unless it has actual
knowledge to the contrary.91 Hence, a franchising authority need not submit evidence regarding a lack of
Effective Competition under those three tests; it need only submit evidence regarding the lack of
Competing Provider Effective Competition. Question 6b of the revised form will state the presumption
that cable systems are not subject to any other type of Effective Competition excluding Competing
Provider Effective Competition, and it will retain the question in the current form asking the franchising
authority to indicate whether it has reason to believe that this presumption is correct. We will revise the
instructions for completing Form 328 to reflect the changes to Question 6. In addition, we note that
instruction number 2 to the form was not previously updated to reference LEC Effective Competition,
even though the form itself contains such an update. For accuracy and completeness, we will revise
instruction number 2 to reference LEC Effective Competition.
19.Except as otherwise discussed, we will retain the existing provisions in section 76.910 of
our rules governing franchising authority certifications. As stated in current section 76.910, the
certification will become effective 30 days after the franchising authority files Form 328 unless the
(Continued from previous page)
offer service to at least ‘50 percent’ of the households in the communities because of their national satellite
footprint. Based on all the foregoing considerations, we find that the first part of the competing provider test is
satisfied for all the communities in which Time Warner is invoking it.”) (footnotes omitted); Comcast
Communications, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 16754, 16755, ¶ 4 (MB, 2013) (making
similar statements); Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 16292,
16293, ¶ 5 (MB, 2013) (making similar statements).
90 See, e.g., NCTA Comments at 4; ACA Reply at 4, 14-15; NCTA Reply at 4; ACA Apr. 16 Ex Parte Letter at 1
(“[T]he alternatives put forth by opponents of the proposed presumption are unlikely to overcome these burdens and
persuade a small cable operator to seek an effective competition finding, even for those who undoubtedly would
meet the ‘competing provider’ test.”).
91 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.910(b)(4) (“Unless a franchising authority has actual knowledge to the contrary, the
franchising authority may rely on the presumption in § 76.906 that the cable operator is not subject to effective
competition.”). The three other types of Effective Competition could become relevant if a franchising authority
rebuts a presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition, and the cable operator seeks to demonstrate that
a different type of Effective Competition exists and the franchising authority thus cannot regulate basic cable rates.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
15
Commission notifies the franchising authority otherwise.92 We find that this approach is consistent with a
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition, because the franchising authority is required
to submit a rebuttal of that presumption with Form 328. This approach also is consistent with the
statutory requirement that in general, a franchising authority’s certification must become effective 30 days
after the date filed.93 Once a franchising authority files revised Form 328, the Commission may deny a
certification based on failure to meet the applicable burden,consistent with the Commission’s authority to
dismiss a pleading that fails on its face to satisfy applicable requirements.94 Accordingly, if a franchising
authority files a revised Form 328 that fails to meet the required standards to regulate rates,we will
promptly deny the filing and it thus will not become effective 30 days after filing. We see no need to
require a franchising authority to wait one year before filing a new Form 328 after one is denied, as ACA
requests;95 we believe that franchising authorities should remain able to file a new Form 328 at any time if
circumstances change such that they can submit new data rebutting the presumption of Competing
Provider Effective Competition.
20.We also find that deeming a certification effective 30 days after it is filed is consistent
with STELAR’s requirement that we streamline the Effective Competition process for small cable
operators. We expect that few franchising authorities will file the revised Form 328 because they will be
unable to produce the necessary evidence to rebut the presumption of Competing Provider Effective
Competition in most franchise areas, due to the ubiquity of DBS service. Cable operators thus will likely
need to address only a small number of filed Form 328s. In fact, if the Commission finds that the
attachment accompanying a franchising authority’s Form 328 fails to show the evidence required to rebut
the presumption, and the Commission thus dismisses the form based on failure to meet the applicable
burden, then the cable operator will not need to take any affirmative action. The new approach adopted
herein thus will streamline the Effective Competition process for all cable operators, including small ones.
The NPRM sought comment on whether a cable operator should have an opportunity before the 30-day
period expires to respond to a franchising authority’s showing.96 Commenters did not address this issue
and we find it unnecessary to do so, given that a cable operator may file a petition for reconsideration that
would automatically stay the imposition of rate regulation, as discussed below.
92 See id. § 76.910(e). The franchising authority may not, however, regulate a cable system’s rates unless it meets
certain procedural requirements. See id. (“Unless the Commission notifies the franchising authority otherwise, the
certification will become effective 30 days after the date filed, provided, however, That the franchising authority
may not regulate the rates of a cable system unless it: (1) Adopts regulations: (i) Consistent with the Commission’s
regulations governing the basic tier; and (ii) Providing a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of
interested parties, within 120 days of the effective date of certification; and (2) Notifies the cable operator that the
authority has been certified and has adopted the regulations required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section.”). See also
47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(4).
93 See id. Given this statutory provision, we cannot grant ACA’s request that we provide cable operators with 30
days to oppose a revised Form 328 and franchising authorities with 15 days to respond, or that we automatically
deny a Form 328 not acted on within 180 days. See ACA Comments at 12 and 14, n. 28.
94 See, e.g., Petition of the State of Ohio for Authority to Continue to Regulate Commercial Mobile Radio Services,
Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 7842 (1995) (denying the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s petition to retain
state regulatory authority over the rates of intrastate CMRS because it failed to satisfy the statutory standard
established for extending state regulatory authority over CMRS rates). See also Telecommunications Carriers
Eligible for Universal Service Support,Order, 26 FCC Rcd 13788, 13797,¶ 21 (2011) (“Petitioners seeking
forbearance bear the burden of proof and must show that each of the statutory elements of forbearance is met, and
we need only find that petitioner has failed to meet one of the forbearance criteria to deny its petition.”)(footnote
omitted).
95 ACA Comments at 13.
96 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2572, ¶ 16.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
16
21.As discussed in the NPRM,97 under our current rules a cable operator may oppose a
certification by filing a petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 76.911 of our rules, demonstrating
that it satisfies any of the four tests for Effective Competition.98 Similarly, under the new rules, the cable
operator may file a petition for reconsideration in which it either (a) disagrees with a franchising
authority’s rebuttal of the presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition, or (b) attempts to
demonstrate the presence of one of the other types of Effective Competition (low penetration, municipal
provider, or LEC). We see no need to make any revisions to existing section 76.911. The procedures set
forth in section 1.106 of our rules for the filing of petitions for reconsideration will continue to govern
petitions for reconsideration of Form 328 and responsive pleadings.99 In addition, a cable operator’s
filing of a petition for reconsideration alleging that Effective Competition exists will continue to
automatically stay the imposition of rate regulation pending the outcome of the reconsideration
proceeding.100 Although the NPRM sought comment on whether we should deem a petition for
reconsideration granted if the Commission does not act on it within six months,101 we find that such an
approach is unnecessary given the automatic rate regulation stay.
22.Our rules currently permit cable operators to request information from a competitor about
the competitor’s reach and number of subscribers, if the evidence necessary to establish Effective
Competition is not otherwise available.102 We will retain that provision, while adding a similar provision
to benefit franchising authorities now that they will bear the burden of demonstrating the lack of
Competing Provider Effective Competition.103 Specifically, we will amend our rules to provide that,if a
franchising authority filing Form 328 wishes to demonstrate a lack of Competing Provider Effective
Competition and necessary evidence is not otherwise available, the franchising authority may request
directly from an MVPD information regarding the MVPD’s reach and number of subscribers in a
particular franchise area. As currently required for such requests by cable operators, we will require the
MVPD to respond to such a request within 15 days, and we will permit such responses to be limited to
numerical totals related to subscribership and reach. Third-party MVPDs must timely respond to these
requests, and the Commission may use its enforcement power to ensure compliance.104 We understand
that currently, third-party MVPDs or their agents sometimes charge cable operators for access to this data.
We will revisit the issue of the cost of the data if we receive complaints that the cost of such data makes
97 Id.at 2572, ¶ 17.
98 47 C.F.R. § 76.911. We see no benefit to eliminating the distinctions between petitions for reconsideration,
petitions for revocation, petitions for recertification, and petitions for a determination of Effective Competition, as
ACA advocates. See ACA Comments at 11.
99 47 C.F.R.§§ 1.106(f), 76.911(a). Accordingly, the 30-day period for a cable operator to file its petition for
reconsideration begins to run from the 30th day after the Form 328 is filed with the Commission. 1993 Rate Order,
8 FCC Rcd at 5693, ¶ 88. See also 47 C.F.R.§ 1.106(f).
100 Id.§ 76.911(b).
101 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2572, ¶ 17.
102 47 C.F.R.§ 76.907(c) (“If the evidence establishing effective competition is not otherwise available, cable
operators may request from a competitor information regarding the competitor’s reach and number of subscribers.”);
47 C.F.R. § 76.911(a)(1) (applying that provision to the context of petitions for reconsideration of franchising
authority certifications).
103 See Cablevision Reply at 8.
104 See NAB et al. Apr. 16 Ex Parte Letter at 2; NATOA Apr. 17 Ex Parte Letter at 1; 47 C.F.R. § 0.61(j) (directing
the Media Bureau to “[e]xercise authority to issue non-hearing related subpoenas for the attendance and testimony
of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, schedules of charges, contracts,
agreements, and any other records deemed relevant to the investigation of matters within the jurisdiction of the
Media Bureau.”).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
17
the filing of Form 328 cost-prohibitive to franchising authorities.105
23.Even under the new approach to Effective Competition adopted herein, we expect that
cable operators still on occasion may wish to file petitions for a determination of Effective Competition
pursuant to section 76.907 of our rules.106 In particular, if a franchising authority is certified under the
new rules and procedures, a cable operator may at a later date wish to file a petition demonstrating that
circumstances have changed and one of the four types of Effective Competition exists. Accordingly, we
will retain existing section 76.907, but we will revise section 76.907(b) to reflect the new presumption.
Once a franchising authority is certified under the new rules adopted herein, after having demonstrated a
lack of Competing Provider Effective Competition, we agree with ACA that it would not make sense for a
cable operator filing a decertification petition to benefit from the presumption of Effective Competition;107
rather, in this instance the cable operator must demonstrate that circumstances have changed and
Effective Competition is now present in the franchise area.108 We will clarify in revised section 76.907(b)
that the new presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition does not apply in this instance.
24.All of the new rules and procedures for Effective Competition will go into effect once the
Commission announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”)of the rules that
require such approval and of revised Form 328. Although some of the rules, such as the new rebuttable
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition itself, do not require OMB approval, we
conclude that none of the rules should go into effect until the OMB approval is obtained. Although some
commenters have argued that cable operators generally should benefit from the new presumption as soon
as it is adopted,109 we find that tying the effective date to the OMB approval is appropriate where, as here,
all of the rules are so closely tied to the submission of a revised form that requires OMB approval.
25.Overall, we find that the new rules and procedures discussed above will create an
Effective Competition process that is more efficient for cable operators, especially small cable operators,
than the current approach.110 Cable operators will not be required to file petitions for a determination of
Effective Competition in the first instance; instead, franchising authorities will have to rebut the
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition in those limited locations in which the
statutory test is not met.111 The record demonstrates that filing Effective Competition petitions has forced
cable operators to incur significant costs, such as the cost of purchasing zip code and competing provider
penetration data and preparing formal legal filings,112 merely to confirm what the marketplace data
105 See ACA Reply at 16.
106 47 C.F.R. § 76.907.
107 ACA Comments at 12-13.
108 Thus, it would be inappropriate to automatically grant cable operator petitions for decertification that are not
acted on within a certain timeframe, as ACA suggests, given that the franchising authority would have previously
put forth evidence of a lack of Competing Provider Effective Competition in order to become certified in the first
place. See id. at 14, n. 28.
109 See id.at 12; NCTA Comments at 8-9; Cablevision Reply at 6.
110 See ITTA Comments at 6. ACA also argues that the benefits will flow through to consumers.See Letter from
Seth A. Davidson, Counsel for American Cable Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (May 28,
2015).
111 See supra Section II.
112 See NCTA Comments at 4; ACA Reply at 4; NCTA Reply at 4, 11. ACA estimates that, for a cable system
serving a single community of 2,650 households, the total cost of seeking an Effective Competition determination
would be approximately $5,400 ($300 for zip code data, $677 for competing provider subscribership data, $1,465
for the FCC filing fee, and $3,000 in legal fees) assuming the cable operator does not file a reply. See ACA Apr. 22
Ex Parte Letter at 2-3. Some other commenters, however, claim, without convincing supporting evidence, that
rebutting the current presumption is not overly burdensome for cable operators. See MDTC Comments at 8; NAB
(continued….)
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
18
already suggests about the likely application of the statutory Effective Competition tests in almost all
communities.113 According to ACA, only one cable operator with fewer than 1,000,000 total subscribers
has filed an Effective Competition petition since December 30, 2011, even though such operators are
likely subject to Effective Competition to the same degree as other,larger operators.114 Given the
ubiquitous nationwide presence and penetration levels of DBS, we find that it no longer makes sense to
burden cable operators with the costs of filing an Effective Competition petition in the first instance. It is
far more efficient to require franchising authorities to rebut the presumption in those relatively rare
instances where there may not be Effective Competition. Contrary to NAB’s suggestion,115 the burdens
imposed on cable operators under the current presumption,which is no longer supportable by marketplace
data,justify adoption of the new presumption as the most efficient approach. The fact that cable
operators benefit from a finding of Effective Competition116 does not alter this analysis. We expect that
the volume of new Form 328s filed by franchising authorities will be far less than the volume of cable
operator Effective Competition petitions currently filed, which will conserve resources of cable operators
as well as the Commission.117 Contrary to the suggestion of some commenters,118 we do not expect
franchising authorities in thousands of communities to file new Form 328s.Rather, we anticipate that
few franchising authorities will be able to present data to rebut the presumption of Competing Provider
Effective Competition, given the ubiquity and penetration of DBS. In this regard, we agree with NCTA
that,“[g]iven competitive conditions throughout the country and the relatively few [franchising
authorities]that currently rate regulate, shifting the presumption is extraordinarily unlikely to unleash an
avalanche of [franchising authority]filings.”119
26.We recognize that franchising authorities, including small franchising authorities, will
face additional burdens in preparing revised Form 328 with an attachment rebutting the presumption of
Competing Provider Effective Competition, and we also recognize that some franchising authorities have
limited resources.120 We conclude that any such burdens are justified by the efficiency gained by
conforming the presumption to marketplace realities.121 In 1993, the Commission stated that it was
“mindful of franchising authorities’ concern that they do not have access to the information or the
resources necessary to show the absence of effective competition as a threshold matter of jurisdiction.”122
Today, in contrast, Effective Competition exists in the vast majority of franchise areas and we anticipate
few franchising authorities will have a basis for filing a revised Form 328 demonstrating a lack of
(Continued from previous page)
Comments at 17; NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 3. We disagree and find that the costs of the current process are
significant, especially for smaller cable operators.
113 See supra Section II; Cablevision Reply at 2.
114 See ACA Apr. 22 Ex Parte Letter at 3, n. 7.
115 NAB Comments at 16-17.
116 See MDTC Comments at 10; MDTC Reply at 5; NJ OCTV Reply at 4.
117 See ITTA Comments at 6; Cablevision Reply at 2-3.
118 See MDTC Comments at 9; NATOA Reply at 5.
119 NCTA Reply at 6, n. 24.
120 See MDTC Comments at 9, n. 32 and 10; NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 2-3; MDTC Reply at 4-5; NAB Reply at
14; NJ OCTV Reply at 2-4; Media Alliance/Greenlining Institute May 7 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Letter from Linda
Sherry, Director, National Priorities, Consumer Action, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (May 8, 2015);
IAC Recommendation at 5.
121 See supra Section III.A.
122 1993 Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5668, ¶ 41. See also MDTC Comments at 10; NAB Comments at 18; NJ Rate
Counsel Comments at 2-3; NAB Reply at 13-14; NJ OCTV Reply at 3.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
19
Competing Provider Effective Competition.123 In addition, we have ensured that franchising authorities
will have access to the information needed to demonstrate a lack of Competing Provider Effective
Competition by implementing procedures pursuant to which a franchising authority may request directly
from an MVPD information regarding the MVPD’s reach and number of subscribers in a particular
franchise area.124 With regard to the burden on the franchising authorities, ACA explains that unlike cable
operators,governmental entities can receive zip code data from the post office free of charge, and
governmental entities likely know all of the zip codes within their jurisdiction in any event.125 Overall,
the costs to franchising authorities will be outweighed by the significant cost-saving benefits of a
presumption that is consistent with market data showing that the vast majority of communities would
satisfy the Competing Provider Effective Competition standard. We will monitor the marketplace to
determine whether the burdens of filing a revised Form 328 are dissuading franchising authorities from
filing, and if so, we will reconsider whether changes should be made to reduce their costs.126
D.Current Certifications and Pending Effective Competition Proceedings
27.Many franchising authorities were certified over 20 years ago to regulate the basic
service tier rates and equipment based on the existing presumption of no Effective Competition. Based
on the changes in the marketplace that have occurred in the last 20 years, discussed above, we believe that
the factual foundation for those findings is no longer valid in most cases. Therefore,all franchising
authorities with existing certifications that wish to remain certified must file revised Form 328, including
the attachment rebutting the presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition, within 90 days
of the effective date of the new rules.127 If a franchising authority with an existing certification does not
file a new certification (Form 328) during the 90-day timeframe, its existing certification will expire at the
end of that timeframe as long as there is not pending for the franchise area an opposed Effective
Competition petition or an opposed or unopposed petition for reconsideration of certification, petition for
reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision, or application for review of an Effective
Competition decision.128 The Media Bureau will issue a public notice at the conclusion of the 90-day
timeframe identifying all franchising authorities that filed a revised Form 328 as well as those franchising
authorities that are party to one of the above-listed pending proceedings, and stating its finding of
123 See supra ¶ 7 (stating that franchising authorities filed oppositions to fewer than 8 percent of the Effective
Competition petitions considered since the start of 2013).
124 See supra ¶ 22.
125 ACA Apr. 22 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
126 See id.at 4 (stating in the context of the current system that, to the extent franchising authorities are deterred
from filing oppositions to Effective Competition petitions due to the cost involved, the Commission could waive the
filing fee or require DBS providers to provide subscribership data to franchising authorities at no cost). We clarify
there is not a filing fee associated with Form 328. See also supra ¶ 22 (discussing charges from third-party MVPDs
or their agents for access to subscribership data).
127 ACA and NCTA support a comparable procedure. See ACA Comments at 13-14; NCTA Comments at 9. See
also Cablevision Reply at 6. ACA claims that with regard to small cable operators the procedure should only apply
to “active” franchising authorities, meaning those that have adopted a rate order in the previous 12 months. See
ACA Reply at 9. We find that such a limitation would be difficult for the Commission to administer and would not
provide an offsetting benefit to small cable operators. We find further that the approach adopted here is preferable
to the approach advocated by some commenters, in which all previously adjudicated Effective Competition
decisions would remain valid until either the franchising authority or the cable operator affirmatively demonstrates a
change. See NCTA Comments at 8; NCTA Reply at 5, n. 18. The approach adopted here will enable us to ensure
more promptly that franchising authority certifications correspond to the current marketplace.
128 We recognize that, while the franchising authority remains certified, it is possible that the Commission’s rate
regulation rules may require a rate filing in the normal course of business. See Cablevision Reply at 6-7. Unless the
franchising authority and cable operator reach an agreement to the contrary, the cable operator should continue to
make any such required filing.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
20
Competing Provider Effective Competition applicable to all other currently certified franchising
authorities. This public notice will address commenters’ concerns that the Act requires the Commission
to make a franchise area-specific finding of Effective Competition before revoking existing
certifications.129 The Media Bureau’s finding of Competing Provider Effective Competition will be based
on the new presumption coupled with the franchising authority’s failure to attempt to retain its
certification by resubmitting Form 328 accompanied by the requisite showing of no Competing Provider
Effective Competition. We thus find that the approach adopted herein, which the NPRM sought comment
on in the alternative,130 is preferable to administratively revoking all existing certifications since it will
afford franchising authorities an opportunity to rebut the new presumption while their existing
certification is still in effect and requires a Commission finding of Effective Competition for each
franchise area.
28.Where currently certified franchising authorities file revised Form 328, their
certifications will remain valid unless and until the Media Bureau issues a decision denying the new
certification request.131 We will not automatically deny a Form 328 that we do not act on within a certain
timeframe,132 finding that doing so would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that franchising
authority certifications become effective 30 days after the date filed and with the procedures adopted
above.133 If a currently certified franchising authority files revised Form 328 and there is a pending cable
operator Effective Competition petition, petition for reconsideration of certification, petition for
reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision, or application for review of an Effective
Competition decision applicable to the franchise area, the Media Bureau will consider the record from
that filing along with the new certification in making its determination regarding whether the franchising
authority has overcome the presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition.134 If a currently
certified franchising authority files revised Form 328 but there is no applicable pending proceeding, the
Media Bureau may consider the form itself as well as other relevant data available to the Bureau in
making its determination.
29.Where existing franchising authority certifications expire pursuant to the procedures
discussed above, the Commission itself will not regulate rates. Section 76.913(a) of the Commission’s
rules, which generally directs the Commission to regulate rates upon revocation of a franchising
authority’s certification, will not apply upon the expiration of existing certifications discussed above.135
The Act precludes a franchising authority or the Commission from regulating rates where Effective
129 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2); NAB Comments at 2, 7-21; Consumer Advocates Reply at 3; NAB Reply at 3-9.
130 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2571, ¶ 15.
131 See ACA Comments at 13-14; NCTA Comments at 9. Accordingly, a currently certified franchising authority
that wishes to remain certified and to make use of its basic service tier rate regulation authority may do so pursuant
to these procedures. See NDC4 May 14 Ex Parte Letter at 1. The franchising authority’s ability to regulate rates,
however, would be automatically stayed if the filing of revised Form 328 impels the cable operator to file a petition
for reconsideration of certification alleging the presence of Effective Competition. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.911(b)(1)
(“The filing of a petition for reconsideration . . . will automatically stay the imposition of rate regulation pending the
outcome of the reconsideration proceeding.”). See also Cablevision Reply at 7. The Media Bureau will promptly
dismiss cable operator petitions for reconsideration that do not rebut a franchising authority’s demonstration that
Competing Provider Effective Competition is not present in the franchise area.
132 See ACA Comments at 14.
133 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(4); supra Section III.C.
134 Prior to the effective date of the rules adopted herein, we note that the Media Bureau has authority to continue
processing pending petitions for a determination of Effective Competition, petitions for reconsideration of
certification, and petitions for reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision in the normal course of business
pursuant to existing rules.
135 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.913(a).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
21
Competition is present,136 and the expirations will be based on just such a finding. Section 623(a)(6) of
the Act does not apply to this situation because it requires the Commission to “exercise the franchising
authority’s regulatory jurisdiction” over cable basic service tier rates if the Commission either (1)
“disapproves a franchising authority” due to specified legal or procedural infirmities, or (2) revokes the
franchising authority’s jurisdiction to regulate rates following petition by a cable operator or other
interested party based upon a finding “that the State and local laws and regulations are not in
conformance with” the Commission’s basic service tier rate regulations.137 The expiration of existing
franchising authority certifications based on a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective
Competition combined with the franchising authority’s subsequent failure to attempt to retain its
certification is distinguishable from a Commission finding of legal or procedural infirmities following an
initial certification submission. Contrary to NAB’s suggestions, the expiration of existing franchising
authority certifications is justified for the reasons discussed above, and it does not matter that the
expirations will be unrelated to a petition by a cable operator or other interested party.138
30.There are currently 58 pending cable operator petitions seeking a finding of Effective
Competition, and a total of 17 pending petitions for reconsideration of certification, petitions for
reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision, and applications for review of an Effective
Competition decision. As explained above, if one of these pending proceedings involves a currently
certified franchising authority that files revised Form 328, the record from the pending proceeding will be
considered along with the revised Form 328 submission when the Media Bureau makes its certification
determination. If, however, the pending proceeding involves a franchising authority that does not file
revised Form 328 during the 90-day timeframe but either (i) the proceeding is an opposed cable operator
Effective Competition petition, or (ii)the proceeding is a petition for reconsideration of certification,
petition for reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision, or application for review of an Effective
Competition decision, then the Media Bureau or the Commission will adjudicate the pending proceeding
based on the record before it.139 With regard to pending unopposed cable operator Effective Competition
petitions where the franchising authority does not file revised Form 328,the Media Bureau will grant
such petitions based on a finding that the new presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition
applies and the franchising authority has not attempted to rebut it.140 The Media Bureau will issue a
public notice at the conclusion of the 90-day timeframe for filing revised Form 328, granting all pending
unopposed cable operator Effective Competition petitions where the franchising authority has not filed
revised Form 328, with the grant based on a finding of Competing Provider Effective Competition. That
finding will be premised on the new presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition, as well
as the franchising authority’s failure to oppose the cable operator Effective Competition petition in the
first instance.
136 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2) (“If the Commission finds that a cable system is subject to effective competition, the rates
for the provision of cable service by such system shall not be subject to regulation by the Commission or by a State
or franchising authority under this section.”).
137 Id.§§ 543(a)(6), 543(a)(4) (providing that those legal or procedural infirmities include a Commission finding that
“(A) the franchising authority has adopted or is administering regulations with respect to the rates subject to
regulation under this section that are not consistent with the [Commission’s implementation of basic service tier rate
regulation]; (B) the franchising authority does not have the legal authority to adopt, or the personnel to administer,
such regulations; or (C) procedural laws and regulations applicable to rate regulation proceedings by such authority
do not provide a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested parties”), 543(a)(5). See also
ACA Reply at 8.
138 See NAB Comments at 20-21.
139 See ACA Comments at 13; NCTA Comments at 8.
140 See NCTA Comments at 8; Cablevision Reply at 8.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
22
IV.PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A.Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
31.As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”),141 the
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) relating to this Order. The
FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
B.Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
32.We analyzed this Order with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”),142
and it contains modified information collection requirements.143 It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA.144 The Commission, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens,invites OMB, the general public, and other
interested parties to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document. In
addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,145 we previously
sought specific comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”146
C.Congressional Review Act
33.The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. §
801(a)(1)(A).
D.Additional Information
34.For additional information on this proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow,
Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.
V.ORDERING CLAUSES
35.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i),
4(j), 303(r), and 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j),
303(r), and 543, and section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014,Pub. L. No. 113-200, § 111,
this Order IS ADOPTED, effective upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval and
the effective date of the rules.
36.IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and
623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 543, and
section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-200, § 111,the Commission’s
rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.
141 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The SBREFA
was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (“CWAAA”).
142 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter
35 of title 44 U.S.C.).
143 Relevant information collections include those pertaining to Form 328 and the franchising authority certification
(OMB Control No. 3060-0550), and to petitions for reconsideration of certifications (OMB Control No. 3060-0560).
144 44 U.S.C. § 3507(d).
145 The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (“SBPRA”), Pub. L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002)
(codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
146 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2574, ¶ 25.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
23
37.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
38.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Order
in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
24
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
The Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 to read as follows:
PART 76 –MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
1.The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325,
338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522,531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a,545, 548, 549, 552, 554,
556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
2.Revise § 76.906 to read as follows:
§ 76.906 Presumption of effective competition.
In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary cable systems are presumed (a) to be subject to effective
competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(2); and (b) not to be subject to effective competition pursuant to §
76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4).
3.Amend § 76.907 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 76.907 Petition for a determination of effective competition.
* * * * *
(b) If the cable operator seeks to demonstrate that effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(1), (3)
or (4) exists in the franchise area, it bears the burden of demonstrating the presence of such effective
competition. Effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(2) is governed by the presumption in §
76.906, except that where a franchising authority has rebutted the presumption of competing provider
effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(2) and is certified, the cable operator must demonstrate
that circumstances have changed and effective competition is present in the franchise area.
Note to paragraph (b): The criteria for determining effective competition pursuant to §76.905(b)(4) are
described in Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Report and Order in CS Docket No. 96-85, FCC 99-57 (released March 29, 1999).
* * * * *
4.Amend § 76.910 by revising paragraph (b)(4)to read as follows:
§ 76.910 Franchising authority certification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The cable system in question is not subject to effective competition. The franchising authority must
submit specific evidence demonstrating its rebuttal of the presumption in § 76.906 that the cable operator
is subject to effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(2). Unless a franchising authority has actual
knowledge to the contrary, the franchising authority may rely on the presumption in § 76.906 that the
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
25
cable operator is not subject to effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4).
Note to paragraph (b)(4): The franchising authority bears the burden of submitting evidence rebutting the
presumption that competing provider effective competition, as defined in § 76.905(b)(2), exists in the
franchise area. If the evidence establishing the lack of effective competition is not otherwise available,
franchising authorities may request from a multichannel video programming distributor information
regarding the multichannel video programming distributor’s reach and number of subscribers. A
multichannel video programming distributor must respond to such request within 15 days. Such
responses may be limited to numerical totals.
* * * * *
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
26
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1.As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”),1 an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this
proceeding.2 The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) sought written public comment
on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments
on the IRFA, although some commenters discussed the effect of the proposals on smaller entities, as
discussed below. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) conforms to the RFA.3
A.Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
2.In the Report and Order (“Order”), the Commission improves and expedites the effective
competition process by adopting a rebuttable presumption that cable operators are subject to “Effective
Competition.”4 Specifically, we presume that cable operators are subject to what is commonly referred to
as “Competing Provider Effective Competition.”5 As a result,each franchising authority6 will be
prohibited from regulating basic cable rates7 unless it successfully demonstrates that the cable system is
not subject to Competing Provider Effective Competition. This change is justified by the fact that Direct
Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) service is ubiquitous today and that DBS providers have captured almost 34
percent of multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”)subscribers.8 The Order also
implements section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELAR”), which directs the
Commission to adopt a streamlined Effective Competition process for small cable operators.9 By
adopting a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition,we update our Effective
Competition rules, for the first time in over 20 years, to reflect the current MVPD marketplace,10 reduce
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The SBREFA
was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (“CWAAA”).
2 Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of Section 111 of the
STELA Reauthorization Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 2561 (“NPRM”).
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4 Effective Competition is a term of art that the statute defines by application of specific tests.
5 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 543(a)(2), (l)(1)(B); NPRM ¶ 2.
6 A “franchising authority” is “any governmental entity empowered by Federal, State, or local law to grant a
franchise.” See 47 U.S.C. § 522(10).
7 See id. § 543(b)(7)(A).
8 See NPRM Section II.
9 See Pub. L. No. 113-200, § 111, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014); 47 U.S.C. § 543(o)(1) (“Not later than 180 days after
December 4, 2014, the Commission shall complete a rulemaking to establish a streamlined process for filing of an
effective competition petition pursuant to this section for small cable operators, particularly those who serve
primarily rural areas.”). Accordingly, this rulemaking must be completed by June 2, 2015.
10 See Exec. Order No. 13,579, § 2, 76 Fed. Reg. 41,587 (July 14, 2011) (“To facilitate the periodic review of
existing significant regulations, independent regulatory agencies should consider how best to promote retrospective
analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned”); Final Plan for Retrospective
Analysis of Existing Rules,2012 WL 1851335 (May 18, 2012).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
27
the regulatory burdens on all cable operators,especially small operators,11 and more efficiently allocate
the Commission’s resources.
B.Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
3.No comments were filed in response to the IRFA. In response to the NPRM,some
commenters discussed the effect of the proposals on smaller entities. Specifically, while some
commenters advocated the benefits that a presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition
would have on cable operators, including small cable operators, other commenters expressed concern
about the burdens that would be imposed on franchising authorities, including small franchising
authorities.12 In addition, as explained above, section 111 of STELAR directs the Commission to adopt a
streamlined Effective Competition process for small cable operators.13 While some commenters
expressed their view that adopting a presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition would
best fulfill section 111, others advocated alternate ways to reform the Effective Competition process for
small cable operators.14
C.Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will
Apply
4.The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of, and where feasible, an
estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted in the Order.15 The
RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,”
“small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”16 In addition, the term “small business” has
the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.17 A small business
concern is one which: (1)is independently owned and operated; (2)is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.18 Below, we provide a
description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where
feasible.
5.Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is
defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”19 Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate
that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.20 We estimate that, of this
11 Congress applied the definition of “small cable operator” as set forth in section 623(m)(2) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the
aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities
whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” See 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2), (o)(3).
12 See NPRM Section III.C (discussing the impact of a presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition
on cable operators and on franchising authorities).
13 47 U.S.C. § 543(o)(1).
14 See NPRM Section III.B.
15 5 U.S.C. §603(b)(3).
16 Id.§601(6).
17 Id.§601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. §601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register.” 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
18 15 U.S.C. §632.
19 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
20 U.S.CENSUS BUREAU,STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES:2011, Table 427 (2007).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
28
total, a substantial majority may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”21 Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
6.Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 2007 North American Industry Classification
System (“NAICS”) defines “Wired Telecommunications Carriers” as follows: “This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a
combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network
facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including
VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet
services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.”22 The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic census category, “Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.”23 Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for
the entire year.24 Of this total, 2,940 firms had fewer than 100 employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more
employees.25 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be
considered small entities.
7.Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its own small business
size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission’s rate regulation rules, a
“small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.26 According to SNL
21 The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations indicate that there were 89,476 local
governments in 2007. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011,
Table 428. The criterion by which the size of such local governments is determined to be small is a population of
fewer than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. § 601(5). However, since the Census Bureau, in compiling the cited data, does not
state that it applies that criterion, it cannot be determined with precision how many such local governmental
organizations are small. Nonetheless, the inference seems reasonable that a substantial number of these
governmental organizations have a population of fewer than 50,000. To look at Table 428 in conjunction with a
related set of data in Table 429 in the Census’s Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that inference is further supported by
the fact that in both Tables, many sub-entities that may well be small are included in the 89,476 local governmental
organizations, e.g.county, municipal, township and town, school district and special district entities. Measured by a
criterion of a population of fewer than 50,000, many of the cited sub-entities in this category seem more likely than
larger county-level governmental organizations to have small populations. Accordingly, of the 89,746 small
governmental organizations identified in the 2007 Census, the Commission estimates that a substantial majority are
small.
22 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
23 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517110).
24 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, “Information:
Subject Series –Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007 –2007
Economic Census,” NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table.
25 Id.
26 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on
Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
29
Kagan, there are 1,258 cable operators.27 Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small
under this size standard.28 In addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.29 Current Commission records show 4,584 cable systems
nationwide.30 Of this total, 4,012 cable systems have fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems
have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that
most cable systems are small.
8.Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed
subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish”
antenna at the subscriber’s location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA’s broad economic
census category, “Wired Telecommunications Carriers,”31 which was developed for small wireline firms.
Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.32
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.33 Of this total,
2,940 firms had fewer than 100 employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more employees.34 Therefore,
under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we
have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a
superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled “Cable and Other Program Distribution.”
The 2002 definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity is one with
$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.35 Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which
requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network.36 Each currently
27 Data provided by SNL Kagan to Commission Staff upon request on March 25, 2014. Depending upon the number
of homes and the size of the geographic area served, cable operators use one or more cable systems to provide video
service. See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming,MB
Docket No. 12-203, Fifteenth Report, 28 FCC Rcd 10496, 10505-06, ¶ 24 (2013) (“15th Annual Video Competition
Report”).
28 SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx.We
note that when this size standard (i.e., 400,000 or fewer subscribers) is applied to all MVPD operators, all but 14
MVPD operators would be considered small. 15th Annual Video Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 10507-08, ¶¶
27-28 (subscriber data for DBS and Telephone MVPDs). The Commission applied this size standard to MVPD
operators in its implementation of the CALM Act. See Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness
Mitigation (CALM) Act, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17222, 17245-46, ¶ 37 (2011) (defining a smaller MVPD
operator as one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide, as of December 31, 2011).
29 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).
30 The number of active, registered cable systems comes from the Commission’s Cable Operations and Licensing
System (COALS) database on July 1, 2014. A cable system is a physical system integrated to a principal headend.
31 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007). The 2007 NAICS definition of the category of “Wired
Telecommunications Carriers” is in paragraph 6, above.
32 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
33 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, “Information:
Subject Series –Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007 –2007
Economic Census,” NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table.
34 Id.
35 13 C.F.R. § 121.201; NAICS code 517510 (2002).
36 See 15th Annual Video Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 10507, ¶ 27. As of June 2012, DIRECTV is the
largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD in the United States, serving approximately 19.9 million
subscribers. DISH Network is the second largest DBS operator and the third largest MVPD, serving approximately
14.1 million subscribers. Id. at 10507, 10546, ¶¶ 27, 110-11.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
30
offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in
excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe
it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a
DBS service provider.
9.Open Video Systems.The open video system (“OVS”) framework was established in
1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services
by local exchange carriers.37 The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video
programming other than through cable systems.Because OVS operators provide subscription services,38
OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.”39 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
category, which is:all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that
there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.40 Of this total, 2,940 firms had fewer than 100
employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more employees.41 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority
of such businesses can be considered small. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some
OVS operators, with some now providing service.42 Broadband service providers (“BSPs”) are currently
the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.43 The Commission does not
have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of
which may not yet be operational.Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
10.Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small incumbent local
exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia,
meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.”44 The SBA’s Office of Advocacy
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field
of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope.45 We have therefore included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has
no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
37 47 U.S.C. § 571(a)(3)-(4).See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of
Video Programming,Thirteenth Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd 542, 606, ¶ 135 (2000) (“13th Annual Video
Competition Report”).
38 See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
39 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
40 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, “Information:
Subject Series –Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007 –2007
Economic Census,” NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table.
41 Id.
42 A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
43 See 13th Annual Video Competition Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606-07, ¶ 135.BSPs are newer firms that are building
state-of-the-art, facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a single network.
44 15 U.S.C. §632.
45 Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27,
1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into
its own definition of “small business.” See 15 U.S.C. §632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. §601(3) (RFA).
SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13
C.F.R. §121.102(b).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
31
11.Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILECs”). Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.46 Census data for 2007
shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.47 Of this total, 2,940 firms had fewer
than 100 employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more employees.48 Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such businesses can be considered small entities.
D.Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
12.Certain rule changes adopted in the Order will affect reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements. Pursuant to the rules and policies adopted in the Order, the Commission will
presume that cable operators are subject to Competing Provider Effective Competition, with the burden of
rebutting this presumption falling on the franchising authority. A franchising authority seeking
certification to regulate a cable operator’s basic service tier and associated equipment will file revised
FCC Form 328, including an attachment containing evidence adequate to satisfy its burden of rebutting
the presumption with specific evidence. Franchising authorities are already required to file Form 328 to
obtain certification to regulate a cable system’s basic service tier, but the attachment rebutting the
presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition will be a new requirement. Cable operators,
including small cable operators, will retain the burden of demonstrating the presence of any other type of
Effective Competition, which a cable operator may seek to demonstrate if a franchising authority rebuts
the presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition. A cable operator opposing a certification
will be permitted to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 76.911 of our rules, as is
currently the case, demonstrating that it satisfies any of the four tests for Effective Competition. The
procedures set forth in section 1.106 of our rules for the filing of petitions for reconsideration will
continue to govern petitions for reconsideration of Form 328 and responsive pleadings. While a
certification will become effective 30 days after the date filed unless the Commission notifies the
franchising authority otherwise, the filing of a petition for reconsideration based on the presence of
Effective Competition will automatically stay the imposition of rate regulation pending the outcome of
the reconsideration proceeding. All of the new rules and procedures will go into effect once the
Commission announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) of the rules that
require such approval and of revised Form 328.
13.All franchising authorities with existing certifications that wish to remain certified must
file revised Form 328, including the attachment rebutting the presumption of Competing Provider
Effective Competition, within 90 days of the effective date of the new rules. At the conclusion of the 90-
day timeframe, the Media Bureau will issue a public notice identifying all franchising authorities that
filed a revised Form 328 as well as those franchising authorities that are party to a pending opposed
Effective Competition petition or a pending opposed or unopposed petition for reconsideration of
certification, petition for reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision, or application for review
of an Effective Competition decision. The public notice will state the Media Bureau’s finding of
Competing Provider Effective Competition applicable to all other currently certified franchising
authorities. Where currently certified franchising authorities file revised Form 328, their certifications
will remain valid unless and until the Media Bureau issues a decision denying the new certification
46 13 C.F.R. §121.201 (2007 NAICS code 517110).
47 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, “Information:
Subject Series –Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007 –2007
Economic Census,” NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table.
48 Id.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
32
request. If a currently certified franchising authority files revised Form 328 and there is a pending cable
operator Effective Competition petition, petition for reconsideration of certification,petition for
reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision,or application for review of an Effective
Competition decision applicable to the franchise area, the Media Bureau will consider the record from
that filing along with the new certification in making its determination regarding whether the franchising
authority has overcome the presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition.49 If a pending
proceeding involves a franchising authority that does not file revised Form 328 during the 90-day
timeframe but either (i) the proceeding is an opposed cable operator Effective Competition petition, or (ii)
the proceeding is a petition for reconsideration of certification, petition for reconsideration of an Effective
Competition decision, or application for review of an Effective Competition decision, then the Media
Bureau or the Commission will adjudicate the pending proceeding based on the record before it. With
regard to pending unopposed cable operator Effective Competition petitions where the franchising
authority does not file revised Form 328, the Media Bureau will issue a public notice granting the
petitions based on a finding of Competing Provider Effective Competition.
E.Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
14.The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance,
rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
small entities.”50 The NPRM invited comment on the benefits and burdens of the approach we adopt
herein on all entities, including small entities.51
15.Overall, we expect that the approach the Commission adopts today will lessen the
number of Effective Competition determinations addressed by the Commission and thus will reduce
regulatory burdens on cable operators, and will more efficiently allocate the Commission’s resources. In
paragraph 25 of the Order, the Commission finds that the new rules and procedures will create an
Effective Competition process that is more efficient for cable operators, especially small cable operators,
since they will not be required to file petitions for a determination of Effective Competition in the first
instance. The Commission explains the significant costs imposed on cable operators by the current
Effective Competition process, and it explains how the new presumption will alleviate those costs.
16.In paragraph 26 of the Order, the Commission discusses the impact of the new rules and
procedures on franchising authorities, including small franchising authorities. The Commission
concludes that the burdens of filing revised Form 328 are justified by the efficiency gained by conforming
the presumption to marketplace realities. The Commission also anticipates that few franchising
authorities will have a basis for filing a revised Form 328 demonstrating a lack of Competing Provider
Effective Competition as a result of the presence of Effective Competition in the vast majority of
franchise areas. In addition, the Commission states that it has ensured that franchising authorities will
have access to the information needed to demonstrate a lack of Competing Provider Effective
49 Prior to the effective date of the rules adopted in the Order, we note that the Media Bureau has authority to
continue processing pending petitions for a determination of Effective Competition, petitions for reconsideration of
certification, and petitions for reconsideration of an Effective Competition decision in the normal course of business
pursuant to existing rules.
50 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
51 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 2573-74, ¶¶ 21-23.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
33
Competition.52 Overall, the costs to franchising authorities will be outweighed by the significant cost-
saving benefits of a presumption that is consistent with market data showing that the vast majority of
communities would satisfy the Competing Provider Effective Competition standard. The Commission
states that it will monitor the marketplace to determine whether the burdens of filing a revised Form 328
are dissuading franchising authorities from filing, and if so, it will reconsider whether changes should be
made to reduce their costs.
17.Finally, we note that the Commission considered alternate means to implement section
111 of STELAR. After evaluating all of the alternate proposals set forth in the record, in paragraph 16
the Commission concludes that while some proposals are already implemented, others would not have a
sufficient impact on the costs that burden cable operators, particularly small cable operators,under the
existing Effective Competition regime. Accordingly, the Commission has concluded that adopting a
rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition is the best approach to streamline
the process for small cable operators.
F.Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
18.None.
G.Report to Congress
19.The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be
sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.53 In addition,the Commission will send a
copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The Order and
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.54
52 In addition, in paragraph 22 of the Order, the Commission explains that third-party MVPDs or their agents
sometimes charge cable operators for access to subscribership and reach data. The Commission states that it will
revisit the issue of the cost of the data if it receives complaints that the cost of such data makes the filing of Form
328 cost-prohibitive to franchising authorities.
53 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
54 See id.§ 604(b).
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
34
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
Re:Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of
Section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act, MB Docket No. 15-53.
Where There is “Competition, Competition, Competition,” the Need for Cable Rate Regulation is
Diminished
In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Congress instructed
that where “Effective Competition” existed among pay-TV providers, such competition was preferable to
using local rate regulation to protect consumers. Congress determined that Effective Competition existed
in communities where there are more than one pay-tv provider in the market serving more than 15 percent
of the community.
Under the Act, pay-tv providers may petition the FCC to determine if Effective Competition
exists, relieving them from basic service tier rate regulation. This is a costly process for small and large
operators, and resource-intensive for the Commission. Since 1992, the Commission has found that
“Effective Competition” exists in more than 10,000 communities under Congress’s standard. Recently,
the FCC has confirmed the presence of Effective Competition in more than 99.5 percent of the
communities evaluated. These include the majority of communities served by cable systems with over
5,000 subscribers.
In the more than twenty years since Congress’s 1992 instructions, competition in the video
marketplace has increased dramatically. Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers, like DIRECTV and
DISH Network, now have a ubiquitous nationwide presence providing competition in virtually all
markets. This is in addition to the competition increasingly being provided by other pay –TV providers.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Commission found, in almost all cases, that Effective
Competition did exist and that most cable operators who petitioned the FCC met the statutory test. Where
there is “Competition, Competition, Competition,” the need for basic service tier rate regulation is
diminished.
Last year, the STELA Reauthorization Act further instructed the Commission to make it easier
for small cable operators to petition the FCC to determine Effective Competition in their markets. The
size of the cable system, however, bears little relationship to whether it has Effective Competition. Thus,
it is only appropriate for the Commission to adopt a process that reflects the reality that Effective
Competition exists throughout the nation, and provides relief to operators both large and small.
For the last several years, we have been able to watch real world examples of what happens when
cable rate regulation is removed. In the thousands of cable systems subject to Effective Competition, we
have a sizable cohort of real life examples, not hypotheses. Significantly, our most recent report on cable
industry prices concludes that the average rate for basic service is lower in communities with a finding of
Effective Competition than in those without such a finding. This is not surprising since competitive
choice is the most efficient market regulator.
Similarly, there has been no evidence in this proceeding to suggest that our previous findings of
Effective Competition in thousands of communities led to any changes in the tier placement of local
broadcast stations.
This is our presumption: competition results in lower prices for consumers. However, any local
franchising authority is free to come to the FCC and rebut this new presumption for its service area, and,
where successful, regulate basic tier cable rates. In addition, nothing in this Order affects other
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
35
franchising authority responsibilities including the collection of franchise fees, provisions relating to PEG
channels and I-Nets, and the creation and enforcement of customer service standards.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
36
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
Re:Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of
Section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act, MB Docket No. 15-53.
In the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Congress issued a clear mandate to provide administrative
relief for small cable operators. Today, while I approve steps to reduce burdens on smaller providers, I
cannot support the broader relief proposed because it is not in line with Congress’s intent, it may harm
consumers with increased prices and it unnecessarily burdens local franchising authorities.
Currently, cable providers must overcome a presumption that local franchise areas lack effective
competition. However, rather than tailoring the relief to reduce the burden on smaller providers as
Congress directed us to do, the Report and Order completely flips the presumption for all cable providers
and the justification for this shift is STELA. Based on the plain reading of the statute, however, such
broad relief goes beyond what is necessary to effectuate Congress’ intent. Moreover, the record raises
significant questions as to the possibility of unintended consequences based on the solution proposed here
(i.e. that a universal presumption of effective competition could lead to an increase in cable rates). I
cannot support relief to larger providers particularly when doing so could harm consumers and
unnecessarily increases the burdens on our local franchising authorities.
As a result, I vote to approve the Report and Order insofar as it provides relief to small cable operators,
but dissent as to its proposal to go beyond that group of providers.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
37
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
Re:Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of
Section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act, MB Docket No. 15-53.
The title of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization Act of 2014 may
be complicated, but the direction Congress provided in this legislation is clear. In Section 111 Congress
charged the Commission with establishing “a streamlined process for filing . . . effective competition
petition[s] for small cable operators[.]” To the extent that we do so here, this Order has my support.
However, the Commission inexplicably races past this straightforward statutory directive and
instead provides all cable operators—from the biggest to the smallest—with an expedited process to avoid
oversight. This is contrary to what Congress asked us to do, at odds with the recommendation of the
Commission’s own Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, and provides no clear benefit to consumers.
Consequently, to the extent that the Commission acts beyond the direction of Congress in Section 111, I
dissent.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
38
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re:Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of
Section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act, MB Docket No. 15-53.
A bedrock principle of good government is that regulations should reflect the marketplace to
which they apply. Accordingly, throughout my tenure at the Commission, I’ve emphasized the
importance of updating our rules to reflect the modern video marketplace.1 This Report and Order does
precisely that.
More than twenty years ago, the FCC adopted a presumption that cable operators were not subject
to effective competition. This meant that local franchising authorities could regulate the rates charged by
an incumbent cable operator for basic-tier service unless the operator overcame the presumption by
demonstrating that it was in fact subject to effective competition.
This approach made sense in 1993. At the time,consumers had no meaningful choice when it
came to multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). Incumbent cable operators held a 95%
share of video subscribers, and in the vast majority of the country, Americans had only one MVPD
option. Thus, the FCC’s presumption that there was no effective competition accurately reflected then-
prevailing market conditions.
Over the past two decades, however, the industry has changed dramatically. New entrants have
made major competitive splashes into the MVPD market—satellite providers and telephone companies
are the most notable examples. At the end of 2013, satellite providers held 33.9% of the market, while
telephone companies held 11.2%. A granular market analysis reveals that competing MVPDs currently
have more than 15% penetration in each and every one of the 210 Designated Market Areas in the United
States. Moreover, approximately 99.7%of homes in the United States have access to at least three
competing video providers, and nearly 35% have access to at least four providers. These market
developments have literally and figuratively changed the picture for millions of American consumers.
Given this profound transformation, we can’t keep living in the past.2 I therefore support our
decision to adopt a presumption that there is effective competition among competing providers. This
presumption far more accurately reflects the current state of the video marketplace than did its
predecessor.
I hope in the months to come we will continue to modernize our media rules. Whether we are
regulating MVPDs, broadcasters, or other media entities like newspapers, our rules should reflect the
competitive and technological conditions of today, not those of twenty or forty years ago.
1 See, e.g., Remarks of Commissioner Ajit Pai at the Media Institute Luncheon, “The Video Marketplace and the
Internet Transformation,”at 2 (Feb. 7, 2013), available at http://go.usa.gov/3XVZF; 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory
Review –Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section
202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et al., MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, 04-256, Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4371, 4587 (2014)(Dissenting Statement of
Commissioner Ajit Pai), available at http://go.usa.gov/3XyVh.
2 See Eric the Clown, Seinfeld, Season 5, Episode 20 (May 6, 1994) (“You’re living in the past, man! You’re hung
up on some clown from the ’60s, man!”), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esJl7MZoVww.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-62
39
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re:Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of
Section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act, MB Docket No. 15-53.
I am pleased to approve this Report and Order streamlining the effective competition process to
reflect current realities in the video marketplace. With a track record of 99.5% of the communities the
Commission has evaluated having been found to have effective competition since the start of 2013,
adopting a rebuttable presumption of Competing Provider Effective Competition is an idea whose time
has come.
The simple reality in the marketplace is that cable providers meet the standard for relief outlined
in the statute, which the Commission is obligated to follow. In fact, subscriber rates for direct broadcast
satellite providers, Dish and DirecTV, far exceed the threshold in the law for multichannel video
competitive providers under the definition of effective competition. Accordingly, shifting the
Commission’s presumption, which is not contained in the law and remains within our purview to alter, is
both appropriate and needed. Today’s item prevents unnecessary staff efforts under the previous
presumption standard on applications that would have been approved in any event.
The fact that the scope of this item is broader than just the smaller cable system relief identified in
the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 does not preclude the Commission from moving forward at this
time to address the presumption standard for all cable systems at once. Just the opposite: we have an
affirmative obligation to streamline our procedures when appropriate, and certainly when it meets the
statutory requirement. In fact, we should have done this long ago.
At the same time, I do not believe that this item and the reasoning articulated within will impact
the continued existence of the basic service tier. It is certainly not my intent to do so in this item and
those reading the statute in such an extended way seem misguided. That is not to say it is not a logical
consideration for Congress to explore and assess given the changing video marketplace.
I commend the Chairman for working with me to provide this relief to cable operators and hope
to identify even more areas where we can reduce or eliminate legacy regulatory burdens in response to the
rapid evolution of the communications landscape.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CREATING THE
MID.COLUMBIAREGIONAL CABLE COMMISSION
g fr'K*
d fg g f d,f I f C
I D
II*M g N N I T
0
It ~I r M MHCI~CPAC
III P
r.e rM m.~I g r
r
N
"I r rd d c
leg .Pg I
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
Cll'1 01 AF IAV C
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
1
Kintzley, Heather
From:Leland Kerr <lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net>
Sent:Monday, August 31, 2015 2:45 PM
To:Kintzley, Heather; Lisa Beaton (Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us)
Cc:Sherrie Ashley; Lisa Beaton (Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us)
Subject:RE: Mid-Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Heather —Pasco’s administration agrees. Please prepare the notices required by the Agreement for
termination. Thanks—Lee
LELAND B. KERR
Attorney
KERR LAW GROUP | Attorneys at Law | A Professional Limited Liability Company| www.kerrlawgroup.net
: lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net | : 509.735.1542 | : 509.735.0506 | : 7025 W. Grandridge Blvd. Suite A . Kennewick . Washington .
99336
This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission may contain Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or
confidential information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient,
you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached
documentation is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action against you. Please reply to the Sender advising the Sender of the error in
transmission and immediately destroy the message and any accompanying documents. Thank you.
From: Kintzley, Heather [mailto:hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:43 PM
To: Leland Kerr; Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us
Cc: Sherrie Ashley; Stan Strebel <STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov> (STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov); Zabelld@pasco-wa.gov
Subject: RE: Mid-Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Hi Lisa, Lee – I know we are all super busy with more pressing matters than this, but I would LOVE to be able to say I
accomplished something and route a termination notice for the Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission ILA if Pasco and
Kennewick are in agreement. The basis for the termination is outlined in my original email below. Please let me know
when you get a chance.
Thanks,
Heather
From: Leland Kerr [mailto:lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 1:22 PM
To: Kintzley, Heather <hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US>; Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us
Cc: Sherrie Ashley <sashley@kerrlawgroup.net>; Stan Strebel <STREBELS@pasco‐wa.gov> (STREBELS@pasco‐wa.gov)
<STREBELS@pasco‐wa.gov>; Zabelld@pasco‐wa.gov
Subject: RE: Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Thanks, Heather. I will bring this up tomorrow at my meeting with the Pasco City Manager and get back to you. My
initial reaction is to agree that this has never been utilized and is now outdated. Thanks for chasing this down—Lee
LELAND B. KERR
Attorney
KERR LAW GROUP | Attorneys at Law | A Professional Limited Liability Company| www.kerrlawgroup.net
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
2
: lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net | : 509.735.1542 | : 509.735.0506 | : 7025 W. Grandridge Blvd. Suite A . Kennewick . Washington .
99336
This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission may contain Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or
confidential information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient,
you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached
documentation is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action against you. Please reply to the Sender advising the Sender of the error in
transmission and immediately destroy the message and any accompanying documents. Thank you.
From: Kintzley, Heather [mailto:hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us; Leland Kerr
Cc: Fulton, Toni
Subject: Mid-Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Lee, Lisa:
A question came up in December 2014 about the Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission, which was created by ILA in the
1990s. The Cities of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland are members. The Commission was created to regulate basic tier
cable rates in jurisdictions where effective competition was not present. At the time the ILA was passed, the FCC’s rules
provided for a presumption that markets were NOT competitive, and the cable operators had to challenge the local
franchising authority’s determination that it was appropriate to regulate basic tier cable rates by providing proof to the
FCC that effective competition did in fact exist.
The Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission was created in 1994, but I don’t know if anyone ever did anything under its
authority.
Fast‐forward to June 2015. The FCC just recently determined that, given the pervasiveness of other types of providers
such as Dish and DirectTV, effective competition should now be assumed, subject to evidence to the contrary (i.e., a
rebuttable presumption). Please see the attached Report and Order from the FCC providing that, based on the
rebuttable presumption of effective competition, each franchising authority will be prohibited from regulating basic
cable rates unless it successfully demonstrates that the cable system is not subject to Competing Provider Effective
Competition.
I believe this FCC Order undercuts any authority the Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission has or had. I recommend
that the Cities terminate this ILA. I am happy to route a termination notice for approval if you two concur.
Thanks,
Heather
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
1
Kintzley, Heather
From:Lisa Beaton <Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us>
Sent:Monday, August 31, 2015 9:37 AM
To:'Leland Kerr'; Kintzley, Heather
Cc:Sherrie Ashley; Stan Strebel <STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov> (STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov);
Zabelld@pasco-wa.gov
Subject:RE: Mid-Columbia Cable Rate Commission
I will talk with Marie this week. I agree termination of the ILA is appropriate at this point.
Lisa Beaton
City Attorney
City of Kennewick
210 W. 6th Avenue
Kennewick, WA 99336
(509) 585-4272
From: Leland Kerr [mailto:lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 9:34 AM
To: Kintzley, Heather; Lisa Beaton
Cc: Sherrie Ashley; Stan Strebel <STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov> (STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov); Zabelld@pasco-wa.gov
Subject: RE: Mid-Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Thanks Heather. I will pass it on and discuss it with the City Manager on Wednesday—Lee
LELAND B. KERR
Attorney
KERR LAW GROUP | Attorneys at Law | A Professional Limited Liability Company| www.kerrlawgroup.net
: lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net | : 509.735.1542 | : 509.735.0506 | : 7025 W. Grandridge Blvd. Suite A . Kennewick . Washington .
99336
This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission may contain Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or
confidential information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient,
you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached
documentation is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action against you. Please reply to the Sender advising the Sender of the error in
transmission and immediately destroy the message and any accompanying documents. Thank you.
From: Kintzley, Heather [mailto:hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:43 PM
To: Leland Kerr; Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us
Cc: Sherrie Ashley; Stan Strebel <STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov> (STREBELS@pasco-wa.gov); Zabelld@pasco-wa.gov
Subject: RE: Mid-Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Hi Lisa, Lee – I know we are all super busy with more pressing matters than this, but I would LOVE to be able to say I
accomplished something and route a termination notice for the Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission ILA if Pasco and
Kennewick are in agreement. The basis for the termination is outlined in my original email below. Please let me know
when you get a chance.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
2
Thanks,
Heather
From: Leland Kerr [mailto:lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 1:22 PM
To: Kintzley, Heather <hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US>; Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us
Cc: Sherrie Ashley <sashley@kerrlawgroup.net>; Stan Strebel <STREBELS@pasco‐wa.gov> (STREBELS@pasco‐wa.gov)
<STREBELS@pasco‐wa.gov>; Zabelld@pasco‐wa.gov
Subject: RE: Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Thanks, Heather. I will bring this up tomorrow at my meeting with the Pasco City Manager and get back to you. My
initial reaction is to agree that this has never been utilized and is now outdated. Thanks for chasing this down—Lee
LELAND B. KERR
Attorney
KERR LAW GROUP | Attorneys at Law | A Professional Limited Liability Company| www.kerrlawgroup.net
: lkerr@kerrlawgroup.net | : 509.735.1542 | : 509.735.0506 | : 7025 W. Grandridge Blvd. Suite A . Kennewick . Washington .
99336
This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission may contain Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or
confidential information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient,
you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached
documentation is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action against you. Please reply to the Sender advising the Sender of the error in
transmission and immediately destroy the message and any accompanying documents. Thank you.
From: Kintzley, Heather [mailto:hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Lisa.Beaton@ci.kennewick.wa.us; Leland Kerr
Cc: Fulton, Toni
Subject: Mid-Columbia Cable Rate Commission
Lee, Lisa:
A question came up in December 2014 about the Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission, which was created by ILA in the
1990s. The Cities of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland are members. The Commission was created to regulate basic tier
cable rates in jurisdictions where effective competition was not present. At the time the ILA was passed, the FCC’s rules
provided for a presumption that markets were NOT competitive, and the cable operators had to challenge the local
franchising authority’s determination that it was appropriate to regulate basic tier cable rates by providing proof to the
FCC that effective competition did in fact exist.
The Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission was created in 1994, but I don’t know if anyone ever did anything under its
authority.
Fast‐forward to June 2015. The FCC just recently determined that, given the pervasiveness of other types of providers
such as Dish and DirectTV, effective competition should now be assumed, subject to evidence to the contrary (i.e., a
rebuttable presumption). Please see the attached Report and Order from the FCC providing that, based on the
rebuttable presumption of effective competition, each franchising authority will be prohibited from regulating basic
cable rates unless it successfully demonstrates that the cable system is not subject to Competing Provider Effective
Competition.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E
3
I believe this FCC Order undercuts any authority the Mid‐Columbia Cable Rate Commission has or had. I recommend
that the Cities terminate this ILA. I am happy to route a termination notice for approval if you two concur.
Thanks,
Heather
DocuSign Envelope ID: E4051392-D3B7-4804-9140-29C78952277E