2011-02-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�abl� Commissian — -- - �[E[C��Ef i�[�IL��[f[�f f [f [�Efl ��.so � .�: �Iii � �.. � � �µ: Heidi A.rnson ' Executive Director .��, � ' 4 763.231.2801 ° �'? ��?"� harnson@northmetrotv.com � �� . , _ 1`y� Effective Competition Filings First, a historical background regarding the Commis- The community that filed the opposition did so on the sion's ongoing effective competition filings: grounds that it would not be in the public's best inter- est for the FCC to approve Comcast's request. This Comcast filed a petition with the FCC in 2008 asking community did not make any argument whether the for regulatory relief in the seven North Metro Mem- 15% competitive penetration threshotd had been met. ber Cities. In order to be granted relief, Comcast The FCC arbitrarily rejected that argument. had to prove that at least 15% of households in the area were receiving multi-channel video services This could set a precedent regarding a similar argument from satellite providers. in the North Metro's effective competition proceeding. However, in addition to the best interest argument, the The Commission reviewed Comcast's petition and North Metro argument is based on data and did show filed an opposition. The grounds being the ques- that the 15% threshold was not met. The North Metro's tionable reliability of using five digit zip codes to case in that particular area is strong. determine address locations within city limits, and the use, by Comcast, of 2000 census data. The FCC has not yet made a decision regarding the North Metro effective competition proceeding. Comcast then filed a reply to the Commission's op- position, utilizing zip+four numbers, and the most Tower S itin OrC�eT' ' recent census data g In 2009, the FCC adopted an order addressing local After examining the data, the Commission deter- authority over cell-tower siting requests, and set up a mined the penetration levels were still below 15% 90 day review limit for co-location requests, and a 150 in some cities, so they filed a motion with the FCC day review limit for new tower requests. The FCC to file a surreply to Comcast's reply. also adopted a 30 day deadline for cities to inform an applicant that an application was incomplete and toll Comcast then replied to the Commission's surreply. those deadlines. �'he Commission replied to this reply with evidence that another of the seven cities was below the 15% petitions for a stay were fi led because it was felt that threshold. Comcast then replied to this reply, the timelines were unrealistic and could result in bad decisions. The petitions were denied by the FCC, so At this point, legal counsel recommended no ad- cities have to abide by the deadlines. ditional filings. The Commission's objectives had been accomplished, and it would not be cost effec- petitions for reconsideration were then filed. The FCC tive to do sa denied the reconsideration request as well. That brings us to 2010. While the FCC didn't act �ere is litigation underway in Texas, regarding the on the North Metro filings, it did issue a decision matter, so there is a chance the decision could be on a different effective competition proceeding. overturned by the courts. � � � � � � � � i � � � � � � E � � �; � 25 NMTV 2010 Annual Report