§76.905. Standards for identification of cable systems subject to effective competition. — Inbound Citations

(1) The cable operator is not subject to rate regulation because effective competition exists as defined in § 76.905. Sections 76.907(b) and (c) apply to petitions filed under this section.

(a) Upon denial or revocation of the franchising authority's certification, the Commission will regulate rates for cable services and associated equipment of a cable system not subject to effective competition, as defined in § 76.905, in a franchise area. Such regulation by the Commission will continue until the franchising authority has obtained certification or recertification.

(c) For purposes of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section, each separately billed or billable customer will count as a household subscribing to or being offered video programming services, with the exception of multiple dwelling buildings billed as a single customer. Individual units of multiple dwelling buildings will count as separate households. The term “households” shall not include those dwellings that are used solely for seasonal, occasional, or recreational use.

In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary cable systems are presumed: (a) To be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(2); and (b) Not to be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4).

(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.

(4) 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 section 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 cable operator is not subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3), or (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.

(c) For purposes of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section, each separately billed or billable customer will count as a household subscribing to or being offered video programming services, with the exception of multiple dwelling buildings billed as a single customer. Individual units of multiple dwelling buildings will count as separate households. The term “households” shall not include those dwellings that are used solely for seasonal, occasional, or recreational use.

In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary cable systems are presumed: (a) To be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(2); and (b) Not to be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4).

(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.

(4) 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 section 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 cable operator is not subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3), or (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.

(c) For purposes of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section, each separately billed or billable customer will count as a household subscribing to or being offered video programming services, with the exception of multiple dwelling buildings billed as a single customer. Individual units of multiple dwelling buildings will count as separate households. The term “households” shall not include those dwellings that are used solely for seasonal, occasional, or recreational use.

In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary cable systems are presumed: (a) To be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(2); and (b) Not to be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4).

(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.

(4) 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 section 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 cable operator is not subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3), or (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.

In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary cable systems are presumed: (a) To be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(2); and (b) Not to be subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4).

(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.

(4) 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 section 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 cable operator is not subject to effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(1), (3), or (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.