The Commission, by its International Bureau, took the following actions pursuant to delegated authority. The effective date of these actions is the release date of this Notice, except were an effective date is specified.

On May 27, 2005, SES Americom filed an application for modification of its authorization, pursuant to the streamlined fleet management procedures under section 25.118(e) of the Commission's rules, to relocate its AMC-2 satellite from the 105" W.L. orbit location to the 85" W.L. orbit location and operate in the 11700-12200, 140000-14500, 3700-4200, and 5925-6425 MHz bands. Previously, pursuant to SES Americom, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 03-2197 (rel. July 7, 2003), the AMC-2 satellite had been operating at the 105° W.L. orbit location on a temporary, non-harmful interference basis. The fleet management modification became effective 30 days after receipt.

In SES Americom, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 03-2197 (rel. July 7, 2003), the Satellite Division, among other things, granted SES AMERICOM, Inc. ("SES AMERICOM") authority to drift the AMC-2 satellite from the 85° W.L. orbit location to the 105° W.L. orbit location, and to operate at the 105° W.L. orbit location on a temporary, non-harmful interference basis. The authority was limited to temporary Ku-Band operations at that location and to temporary use of the C-Band frequencies solely for TT&C functions. The Commission deferred action on the part of the application requesting authority to provide temporary C-Band communications services to customers from the 105" W.L. orbit location. On May 27, 2005, SES Americom filed an application for modification of its authorization (IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20050527-00110), pursuant to the streamlined fleet management procedures under section 25.118(e) of the Commission's rules, to relocate its AMC-2 satellite from the 105° W.L. orbit location to the 85° W.L. orbit location. The fleet management modification became effective 30 days after receipt. Accordingly, we now dismiss as moot the remaining portions of SES Americom's application, IBFS File No. SAT-STA-20030402-00061.

For more information concerning this Notice, contact the Satellite Division at 202-418-0719; TTY 202-418-2555.

1.

This Order considers seventeen petitions which cable operators ("the "Cable Operators") have filed with the Commission pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(1) & (2) and 76.907 of the Commission's rules for a determination that such operators are subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the communities listed in Attachment A (the "Communities"). No opposition to any petition was filed. Finding that the Cable Operators are subject to effective competition in the listed Communities, we grant the petitions.

2

2. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition,' as that term is defined by Section 623(1) of the Communications Act, and Section 76.905 of the Commission's rules. 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.

'47 C.F.R. § 76.906.

2See 47 U.S.C. § 543(1); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.

3See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.

3.

Competing Provider Effective Competition

Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition if its franchise area is (a) served by at least two unaffiliated multi-channel video programming distributors ("MVPD") each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; and (b) the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD exceeds fifteen percent of the households in the franchise area. Turning to the first prong of this test, the DBS service of DirecTV, Inc. (“DirecTV") and DISH Network (“DISH") is presumed to be technically available due to its nationwide satellite footprint, and presumed to be actually available if households in a franchise area are made reasonably aware that the service is available." The two DBS providers' subscriber growth reached approximately 23.16 million as of June 30, 2004, comprising approximately 23 percent of all MVPD subscribers nationwide; DirecTV has become the second largest, and DISH the fourth largest, MVPD provider. In view of this DBS growth data, and the data discussed below showing that more than 15 percent of the households in each of the communities listed on Attachment A are DBS subscribers, we conclude that the population of the communities at issue here may be deemed reasonably aware of the availability of DBS services for purposes of the first prong of the competing provider test. With respect to the issue of program comparability, we find that the programming of the DBS providers satisfies the Commission's program comparability criterion because the DBS providers offer substantially more than 12 channels of video programming, including more than one non-broadcast channel.' We further find that the Cable Operators have demonstrated that the Communities are served by at least two unaffiliated MVPDs, namely the two DBS providers, each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area. Therefore, the first prong of the competing provider test is satisfied.

4. The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the number of households subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceed 15 percent of the households in a franchise area. The Cable Operators sought to determine the competing provider penetration in the Communities by purchasing a subscriber tracking report that identified the number of subscribers attributable to the DBS providers within the Communities on a zip code basis. The Cable Operators assert that they are the largest MVPD in the Communities because their subscribership exceeds the aggregate DBS

* 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2). "See MediaOne of Georgia, 12 FCC Rcd 19406 (1997).

6 Eleventh Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, FCC 05-13, at 54-55 (rel. Feb. 4, 2005).

'See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g).

Charter Petition CSR 6488-E at 6-7; Charter Petition CSR 6490-E at 6-7; Charter Petition CSR 6491-E at 6-7; MCC Petition CSR 6549-E at 6 and Amendment to Petition at 6; MCC Petition CSR 6557-E at 6-7; MCC Petition CSR 6662-E at 6; MCC Petition 6665-E at 6-7; MCC Petition 6680-E at 7; Mediacom Delaware Petition CSR 6663E at 6; Mediacom Southeast Petition CSR 6640-E at 6; Mediacom Southeast Petition CSR 6656-E at 6; Mediacom Southeast Petition CSR 6682-E at 6; Mediacom Southeast Petition CSR 6683-E at 6; Mediacom Southeast Petition 6685-E at 6. Charter Petitions CSR 6488-E/CSR 6490-E/CSR 6491-E and MCC Petitions CSR 6557-E/CSR 6680E reported DBS subscribership on a five digit zip code basis that was adjusted based upon an allocation methodology previously approved by the Commission. See, e.g., In re Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in San Luis Obispo County, California, 17 FCC Rcd 4617 (2002); Fibervision, Inc. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Laurel, MT and Park City, MT, 17 FCC Rcd 16313 (2002). The remaining MCC and Mediacom reports were provided on a zip code plus four basis.

subscribership for those franchise areas. Based upon the aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels as reflected in Attachment A, calculated using 2000 Census household data, we find that the Cable Operator's have demonstrated that the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in the Communities. Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cable Operators have submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that their cable systems serving the Communities set forth on Attachment A are subject to competing provider effective competition.

B. Low Penetration Effective Competition

5.

Section 623(1)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, and therefore exempt from cable rate regulation, if "fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of the cable system. 10 Three Cable Operators listed on Attachment A (Charter CSR 6491-E, MCC Georgia CSRs 6669-E/6680-E, and Telesat CSRs 6533-E/6534-E) provided information showing that less than 30 percent of the households within its franchise area subscribe to its cable services. Accordingly, we conclude that that the Cable Operators have demonstrated the existence of low penetration effective competition under our rules.

6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions filed by Charter Communications, MCC Georgia LLC, Mediacom Delaware LLC, Mediacom Southeast LLC, and Telesat Acquisition LLC d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications for a determination of effective competition in the communities listed on Attachment A ARE GRANTED.

7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certifications to regulate basic cable service rates granted to any of the local franchising authorities overseeing the Cable Operators ARE REVOKED.

8. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules."

9 Id.

10 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(A).

"147 C.F.R. § 0.283.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Steven A. Broeckaert

Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau