FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Withdrawal of Cable Rate Complaints Against C-TEC, DA 94-1513//$ $/47 C.F.R. 76.922 Cable Rates/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 94-1513 In the matter of ) ) MI0122 City of Midland Withdrawal of FCC Form 329 ) MI0174 Village of Cass City Rate Complaints Against C-TEC ) MI0277 Village of Pentwater Cable Systems ) MI0287 City of Greenville ) MI0319 Fruitland Township ) NU0366 Village of Bellaire ) MI0373 Village of Spring Lake ) MI0451 City of Reed City ) MI0455 City of Belding ) MI0568 Berlin Charter Township ) MI0619 Littlefield Township ) MI0655 Caledonia Charter Township ) MI0673 City of Rockford ) MI0674 Courtland Township ) MI0692 Richmond Township ) MI0693 City of Evart ) MI0700 City of Hudsonville MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 16, 1994 Released: December 19, 1994 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In each of the cases noted above, the local franchising authority (LFA) filed a complaint with this Commission alleging that the prices charged by C-TEC Cable Systems (C- TEC) for cable programming service tier (CPS) services in its community were unreasonably high. These complaints, and the local franchising authorities and filing dates, are noted at Attachment A. Between September 20 and November 10, 1994, many of these LFAs wrote to the Commission to withdraw their CPS complaints. In each case, the LFA was the only complainant who filed with this Commission. Our jurisdiction to regulate CPS rates arises with the filing of a valid complaint against those rates. The withdrawal of the only complaint against an operator's CPS rates in a community constitutes the termination of our jurisdiction to regulate those rates. We will allow the withdrawal of these complaints, and our review of these filings will therefore be terminated. 2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices. Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a cost-of-service showing. In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Operators with valid CPS complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPS prices were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form 393. In each case captioned above, C-TEC did file either an FCC Form 393 benchmark rate justification submission, or a cost of service rate justification submission. 4. This Commission has now received from each of the captioned local franchising authorities a letter stating that it wished to withdraw its CPS rate complaint against C-TEC. Under our rules, this Commission's authority to regulate CPS cable rates arises when a valid complaint against those rates is filed. In every case but one of those noted here, the LFA is the only complainant against this operator in this community. Our mandate is to "protect subscribers of any cable system that is not subject to effective competition from rates that exceed the rates that would be charged if such a system were subject to effective competition." While our rules forbid collusive agreements between operators and local franchising authorities regarding forebearance from rate regulation, there is no evidence of such an agreement here. In many of these letters, in fact, the LFA states that it has completed a rate review of the basic rates, and has found them reasonable. It is on the basis of this finding of reasonableness, rather than on the basis of an underlying agreement to forebear, that these LFAs are seeking to withdraw their CPS rate complaints. We will accordingly allow these complainants to withdraw their complaints. Because our review of the rate justification showings is predicated on the existence of a rate complaint, in those instances where the operator no longer faces rate complaints in the above-noted communities, we are terminating our review of those filings. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that permission to withdraw the FCC Form 329 rate complaints against cable programming service rates in the above-noted communities IS GRANTED, and the review of the resulting rate justification filings IS TERMINATED to the extent discussed herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau Attachment A C-TEC CPS Complaint Withdrawals CUID No., Local Franchising Complaints Complaints Authority FiledWithdrawn MI0122 City of Midland 10/12/93 10/25/94 MI0174 Village of Cass City 12/9/93 9/27/93 MI0277 Village of Pentwater 3/18/94 9/23/93 MI0287 City of Greenville 11/12/93 9/21/94 MI0319 Fruitland Township 3/16/94 9/20/94 MI0366 Village of Bellaire 11/29/93 10/6/94 MI0373 Village of Spring Lake 11/18/93 10/12/94 MI0451 City of Reed City 12/9/93 10/3/94 MI0455 City of Belding 11/18/93 10/6/93 MI0568 Berlin Charter Township 12/16/93 9/27/94 MI0619 Littlefield Township 3/28/94 10/4/94 MI0655 Caledonia Charter Township 11/12/93 9/23/94 MI0673 City of Rockford11/12/93 10/11/94 MI0674 Courtland Township 2/28/94 10/5/94 MI0692 Richmond Township 11/16/93 9/20/94 MI0693 City of Evart 11/16/93 10/11/94 MI0700 City of Hudsonville 11/18/93 10/12/94