FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 5, Pages 3728 to 4696, April 9 - April 27, 2012 Page: 3,763
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
Petition of the City of Boston, Massachusetts, )
) CSR 8488-R
For Recertification to Regulate the Basic Cable )
Service Rates of Comcast Cable Communications, )
LLC (CUID MA0182) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: April 6, 2012 Released: April 9, 2012
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. In 2001, the Commission concluded that the incumbent cable system in Boston,
Massachusetts, was "subject to effective competition" and revoked the certification of the local
franchising authority to regulate the basic service tier rates.' The City of Boston (the "City") filed a
petition on May 9, 2011, pursuant to Section 76.916 of the Commission's rules,2 seeking re-certification
to regulate the basic service tier rates of the incumbent cable system.3 Comcast Communications, LLC4
(hereinafter "Comcast" or the "Company"), filed an opposition to the petition,5 and the City filed a reply.6
Comcast then filed a surreply and a motion for its acceptance.' Our rules require that the City's petition
make a clear showing that the reasons for our 2001 revocation no longer pertain.8 In the following
paragraphs, we find that the City has made the clear showing that our rules require and, accordingly, we
grant the City's petition.
1 Cablevision of Boston, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 14056 (2001) ("Bureau Order"), application for review denied, 17 FCC
Red 4772 (2002) ("Commission Order").
2 47 C.F.R. 76.916.
3 Emergency Petition for Recertification of the City of Boston to Regulate Basic Subscriber Rates ("Petition"). In
Massachusetts, local government entities such as the City grant franchises to cable operators such as Comcast, but
the actual regulation of rates is performed by the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable.
Petition at 4, n.3.
At the time of our 2001 decision, the system was owned by Cablevision of Boston, Inc. The system was
subsequently transferred to Comcast. In the interest of clarity, we will refer to the incumbent cable operator
throughout this Order.
Opposition to Petition for Recertification ("Opposition").
6 City of Boston Reply to Opposition ("Reply").
Motion for Acceptance of Surreply and Surreply of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Surreply"). Pleadings
in excess of the usual Petition, Opposition and Reply are allowed only on a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
47 C.F.R. 76.7(d). We find an extraordinary circumstance here, namely the emergence of a new issue in
Comcast's Opposition - a second possible form of effective competition in Boston. See infra 9. The City,
addressing the new issue in its Reply, made some arguments for the first time. See Reply at 6-8. Fairness dictates
that Comcast be allowed to file a Surreply to answer the City's newly posited arguments. See Surreply at 3 n.8.
8 47 C.F.R. 76.916(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 5, Pages 3728 to 4696, April 9 - April 27, 2012, book, April 2012; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc102307/m1/52/: accessed November 18, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.