FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Cable Operators' Motions to Dismiss Rate Complaints, Order, DA 94-1532//$ $/47 C.F.R. 76.922 Cable Rates/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 94-1532 In the Matter of ) ) Cable Operators' ) Motions to Dismiss Complaints ) Concerning Cable Services Rates ) ORDER Adopted: December 19, 1994 Released: December 21, 1994 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we grant several motions to dismiss complaints on the grounds that the complaints concern rates that are outside the jurisdiction and authority of this Commission. As explained below, the Commission regulates rates for cable programming services (CPS) only, and then only upon filing of a valid complaint. Our review reveals that the complaints listed at Attachment A below, while asserting that they challenge CPS rates, challenge only rates for basic services, not for CPS. These complaints therefore do not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction, and they are accordingly dismissed. 2. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Cable Act of 1992) distinguishes among basic cable service, premium cable service, and cable programming service; this Commission regulates only cable programming service. The basic service tier includes (at a minimum) the broadcast signals distributed by the cable operator along with any public, educational, and government (PEG) access channels that the local franchise authority requires the cable operator to carry. At the cable operator's discretion, this basic service tier may also include additional program services. Premium cable service consists of channels that are paid for individually (per-channel), such as Home Box Office (HBO) and CineMax. Channels for which the operator charges a per-channel or per-program rate are not subject to regulation. CPS includes all video programming distributed over the system that is not on the basic service tier and for which the operator does not charge on a per-channel or per-program basis. This CPS tier is subject to regulation by the Commission in response to a valid complaint. Except in limited circumstances, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the basic services tier, and cannot act upon complaints concerning rates for that tier. Premium (per-channel) cable service is not subject to rate regulation. 3. The filing of a valid complaint regarding CPS rates establishes our jurisdiction, and triggers the operator's obligation to provide rate justification. The complaints noted here in Attachment A were accepted for filing after preliminary review. Subject operators have subsequently filed motions to dismiss these complaints on the grounds that they concern basic, not CPS, rates. The operators argue that challenges against rates for basic service should be submitted to the appropriate local franchising authority rather than to the Commission. 4. Each of the complaints under consideration here was filed with this Commission on an FCC Form 329. FCC Form 329 is used by subscribers or local franchising authorities wishing to lodge with the Commission a complaint about an operator's CPS rates. The form is entitled "Cable Programming Services Rate Complaint." While it is designed for use in challenging upper tier rates, the form itself does not explain or define basic tier, premium, or cable programming services tier, but simply uses the term 'cable programming services' or 'CPS.' It is thus possible that a complainant might complete such a complaint form, and might check the box which states that "this complaint challenges the operator's CPS rates," without actually having distinguished or understood the difference between basic tier rates, premium service rates, and CPS tier rates. 5. We have examined the complaints listed in Attachment A, and the motions to dismiss filed against them, and we conclude that each challenges only basic rates, not CPS rates. Although in most cases the complainant has checked the box indicating that the rates challenged are CPS rates, and that these rates violate the Commission's rules, the specific information provided by the complainant indicates that only basic rates are actually at issue. When only basic rates are being challenged, the complaint should properly be brought to the attention of the local franchise authority in the first instance, and not filed with this Commission. If one of these complaints does in fact challenge CPS rates, the complainant should file a petition for reconsideration providing information adequate to support its challenge. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 623(a)(2)(A) and (B), 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(2)(A) and (B), that the complaints listed in Appendix A hereto ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau Attachment A Complaints Dismissed by this Order CUID No. Complainant Cable Operator AL0255 City of Hokes Bluff CableSouth, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama CA0044 Alex Maler Sonic Cable Television of Santa Cruz Watsonville, California CA0032 Woody Lynn | CA0037 Jerald R. Greene | CA0038 Nancy Morrow | Sonic Cable Television of San Luis Obispo CA0040 George G. Daniel | San Luis Obispo, California Renelle L. Hayes | CA0778 Edward K. Stackler | FL0329 James K. Carter and Fairbanks Communications Inc. Annette D. Carter Delray Beach, Florida IL1232 William E. Coughlin Continental Cablevision of Will County, Inc. Romeville, Illinois MI0672 City of Inkster Barden Cablevision of Inkster Inkster, Michigan NJ0330 John J. Tucciarone TKR Cable Company (Tri-System) Piscataway, New Jersey NJ0422 New Jersey Board of TKR Cable Company of Warwick Regulatory Commissioners Warwick, New York VT0046 Elinor Banquer First Carolina Cable TV, L.P. Springfield, Vermont