Laserfiche WebLink
competition. The result is undue market power for the cable operator as <br />compared to that of consumers ...." See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-862, at 1231 <br />(1992); and 621 Order at ¶ 8. <br />21. In the Matter of Section 621 (a) (1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of <br />1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition <br />Act of 1992, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB <br />Docket No. 05-311 (Rel. March 5, 2007) (the "621 Order"), the FCC determined, <br />based on Section 621(a)(1), that it is unlawful for a local franchising authority to <br />refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of unreasonable build -out <br />mandates and that such mandates "can have the effect of granting de facto <br />exclusive franchises, in direct contravention of Section 621(a)(1)'s prohibition of <br />exclusive cable franchises." See 621 Order, at ¶ 40; see also, Staff Report, § 7(E). <br />22. According to the FCC, "[b]ecause a second provider realistically cannot count on <br />acquiring a share of the market similar to the incumbent's share, the second <br />entrant cannot justify a large initial deployment. Rather a new entrant must begin <br />offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can reasonably <br />ensure a return on its investment before expanding." See Staff Report, § 7(D). <br />23. In the 621 Order, the FCC found that "new cable competition reduced rates far <br />more than competition from DBS [Direct Broadcast Satellite]. Specifically, the <br />presence of a second cable operator in a market results in rates approximately 15 <br />percent lower than in areas without competition." See also, Staff Report, § 2. <br />5 <br />