FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 4,901
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ) CSR 7478-E
Petition for Determination of Effective )
Competition in 12 Mississippi Franchise Areas )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: March 24, 2011 Released: March 28, 2011
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
I. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast" or the "Company"), has filed with the
Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2), and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for
a determination that the Company is subject to effective competition in those communities listed on
Attachment A (the "Attachment A Communities"), all of which are in the Jackson, Mississippi, area.
Comcast alleges that its cable system serving the Attachment A Communities is subject to effective
competition pursuant to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
("Communications Act")' and the Commission's implementing rules,2 and is therefore exempt from cable
rate regulation in the Attachment A Communities because of the competing service provided by two
direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DIRECTV, Inc., and DISH Network. Comcast also claims,
pursuant to Section 623(IX1)(1)(A) of the Communications Act3 and Section 76.905(b)(1) of the
Commission's rules,4 to be exempt from cable rate regulation in the Community listed on Attachment B
(the "Attachment B Community") because Comcast serves fewer than 30 percent of the households in
that franchise area. The only opposition was filed by the City of Jackson (the "City"),s to which Comcast
filed a reply.6
2. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be
subject to effective competition,7 as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act
and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules.8 The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the
presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present
within the relevant franchise area.9 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petition based on our
finding that Comcast is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachments A and
See 47 U.S.C. 543(1)(1)(B).
2 47 C.F.R. 76.905(b)(2).
3 See 47 U.S.C. 543()(IXA).
4 47 C.F.R. 76.905(b)(1).
5 The City of Jackson's Opposition to Petition for Special Relief ("Opposition").
SReply to Opposition ("Reply").
47 C.F.R. 76.906.
B See 47 U.S.C. 543(1); 47 C.F.R. 76.905.
9See 47 C.F.R. 76.906-.907(b).
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/m1/73/ocr/: accessed May 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.