FOR RECORD ONLY                                                                   
$//Consolidated MO&O, 11 Cable Operators, DA 95-106//$
$/76.981 Negative option billing/$
$/A la carte orders/$


                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION            DA 95-106
                          Washington, D.C. 20554 
                                                                           


In the Matter of:                            )      
                                             )      
Letters of Inquiry on Negative               )      LOI-93-1; LOI-93-3; LOI-93-13;        
Option Billing                       )       LOI-93-15; LOI-93-16; LOI-93-17;
                                             )      LOI-93-19; LOI-93-23; LOI-93-24;   
                                             )      LOI-94-2; LOI-94-5



                 CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Adopted:  January 24, 1995                          Released:  January 25, 1995


By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:


       1.      The Commission issued Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to the following operators
requesting that they provide information concerning, among other things, compliance with the
Communications Act's prohibition on negative option billing: C-TEC Cable Systems, City of
McBain and Zeeland Charter Township, MI (LOI-93-1); Comcast Cablevision, Howard
County, MD (LOI-93-3); US Cable, Lake Forest and Lake Bluff, IL (LOI-93-13); Multivision
Cable TV, Prince Georges County, MD (LOI-93-15); Time Warner Cable, Everett, Somerville
and Winthrop, MA (LOI-93-16); Century Southwest Cable TV, Beverly Hills and Los
Angeles, CA (LOI-93-17); Comcast Cablevision, Mount Clemens, MI (LOI-93-19); Nashoba
Cable Services, Danvers, MA (LOI-93-23); Vision Cable of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC
(LOI-93-24); Falcon Cable TV, Kitty Hawk, NC (LOI-94-2); and Warner Cable,
Harrisonburg, VA (LOI-94-5) (collectively, the Operators).

       2.      On or about September 1, 1993, the effective date of the Commission's rate
regulation rules, nine of these Operators restructured their channel offerings so that certain
channels that were previously offered on basic and cable programming services tiers were
offered in a la carte packages.  Similarly, two of these Operators restructured their channel
offerings by splitting an existing cable programming services tier into two tiers.  In addition,
four of these Operators unbundled their programming service rates from equipment charges to
create a separate charge for wire maintenance service.

     3.    Based on the analysis set forth in our previous orders on negative option
billing, we conclude that the conduct of these Operators, during the time period addressed by
the LOIs, with regard to automatically subscribing their customers to restructured or
unbundled programming and equipment offerings did not violate the negative option billing
provisions of federal law.

     4.    Accordingly, IT IS CONCLUDED that C-TEC Cable Systems, City of McBain
and Zeeland Charter Township, MI (LOI-93-1); Comcast Cablevision, Howard County, MD
(LOI-93-3); US Cable, Lake Forest and Lake Bluff, IL (LOI-93-13); Multivision Cable TV,
Prince Georges County, MD (LOI-93-15); Time Warner Cable, Everett, Somerville and
Winthrop, MA (LOI-93-16); Century Southwest Cable TV, Beverly Hills and Los Angeles,
CA (LOI-93-17); Comcast Cablevision, Mount Clemens, MI (LOI-93-19); Nashoba Cable
Services, Danvers, MA (LOI-93-23); Vision Cable of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC (LOI-93-
24); Falcon Cable TV, Kitty Hawk, NC (LOI-94-2); and Warner Cable, Harrisonburg, VA
(LOI-94-5), through the conduct described above,  have not violated Section 3(f) of the 1992
Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. 543(f), or Section 76.981 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.
 76.981.


     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



     Meredith J. Jones
     Chief, Cable Services Bureau