FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,104
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
and number of subscribers. A competitor must respond to such request within 15 days.
Such responses may be limited to numerical totals."7
4. AT&T's refusal lacks merit. There is no reason to doubt that Time Warner needs
AT&T's subscriber numbers to prove that it is subject to competing provider effective competition.
Although those numbers may be confidential to AT&T, there are customary methods for such information
to be used in Commission proceedings with adequate protection from disclosure to competitors and the
general public. Such methods are familiar to AT&T8 and have been used in effective competition
proceedings.9 We are confident that AT&T and Time Warner can arrange to provide the Commission
with the numbers of subscribers to competing MVPDs without compromising AT&T's legitimate interest
in the confidentiality of its own subscriber numbers.'t
5. That Time Warner might be able to show a fonn of effective competition that does not
require AT&T's subscriber numbers as evidence is immaterial." Time Warner is entitled to choose
which form(s) of effective competition to claim and not to claim, and to present a case for competing
provider effective competition without first proving that it cannot show other forms of effective
competition. The Company's request for AT&T's subscriber numbers in the San Antonio communities in
question is entirely within its rights under Section 76.907(c) of our rules.'2
II. ORDERING CLAUSES
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition IS GRANTED and that AT&T shall,
within fifteen (15) days of the release of this Order, comply with its obligations under Section 76.907(c)
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.907(c).
7. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
7 47 C.F.R. 76.907(c).
e See, e.g., (Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless & AT& T, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd 10985, 10992-94, Tf 15-17
(2010); Craig O. McCaw, 9 FCC Rcd 5836, 5922-25, ' 159-68 (1996), aff'd, SBC Communications Inc. v. FCC, 56
F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
9 CoxCom, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd 4384, 2 n.6 (2007).
"' See Time Warner "Reply" at 4 & n.12.
" AT&T's certainty that Time Warner could show LEC effective competition is unfounded in the absence of an
actual filing to that effect by Time Warner and an opportunity to challenge such a filing, in all its elements, by
interested persons. It is also possible that such a filing would require confidential information from AT&T.
_ To the extent that AT&T challenges the validity of 47 C.F.R. 76.907(c), the appropriate place for such a
challenge is a petition for rulemaking.
"13 47 C.F.R. 0.283.
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.
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 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/276/: accessed May 29, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.