WPC`I 2BJ Courier3|wew RomanTimes New Roman BoldXPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@2r 6f F Z l 3|w",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\_)^XP Y-#Xj\  P6G;XP##Xw PE37XP#2 KE:KCG TimesTimes New Roman^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdCG TimesTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicQ7jC:, Xj\  P6G;XPR@|ND, C|\  P6G;P@ND,4  pG;OYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu鏱T錌TƒOuuF"u錊~u匌u"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOOOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu叱T錌TƒOguF"u錇~u匌u2QMK_KZCG TimesTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourierCG Times Italic"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuOuggOuAOAăugYOuuug]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu鏱T錌TƒOuuF"u錊~u匌u"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd- Memorandum Opinion and Order ă  X-Adopted: February 14, 1995 @hppReleased: February 15, 1995 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X- Introduction   X-x1.` ` Here we consider a complaint about the price Prime Cable of Hickory, L. P. ("Prime Cable") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in Catawba County, North Carolina, CUID No. NC0175. Prime Cable has attempted to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This order addresses the reasonableness of Prime Cable's price only through May 14, 1994. At a later time we will issue a separate  X-order addressing the reasonableness of the price after that date.RU X!-#Xj\  P6G;XP#эxThe findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent  X^#-Prime Cable has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second  XI$-Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  X4%-Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second Order  X&-on Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS price determined herein might also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date on which Prime Cable implemented its CPS price under the  X'-new regulations. See para. 3, infra.#x6X@`72X@##Xw PE37XP#ѱ "0*0*0*Y"Ԍ X-x2.` ` Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of"0*0*0*="  X-1992,? Y -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xPub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Y~ -amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993). 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  X-triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.4& Yb-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#x47 C.F.R.  76.956. Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark  X-showing or a costofservice showing.z4& Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#x47 C.F.R.  76.956(b). In either case, the operator has the burden of  X-demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable.,4& X -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xId.Ĉ  Xv-x3.` ` The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.av4& Y -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xOrder in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television  Y -Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).a  X_-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994._e 4& Yu-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xSee Second Order on Reconsideration at 4119; 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b). 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  X -revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.  4& Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xSee Second Order on Reconsideration at 4190, paras. 150152. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC  X -Form 393. 4& XQ-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xId.Ĉ Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a  X -benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. }4& Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#x47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration at 4189 n.195.  X- Procedural Matters   Xb-x4.` ` The first valid CPS complaint was completed and served on Prime Cable on December 22, 1993. The Commission received the complaint on December 27, 1993.  X-x5.` ` Prime Cable attempted to justify its CPS price through an FCC Form 393 filed on January 21, 1994. Prime Cable amended its justification three times: on May 17, 1994; on June 27, 1994, in response to a Cable Services Bureau Order citing common deficiencies"0 0*(('"  X-observed in benchmark filings generally; 4& Xy-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#эxCable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, DA 94526, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994). and on February 7, 1995, in response to a Cable Services Bureau Public Notice offering operators the opportunity to make optional  X-supplemental filings. dr X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э Public Notice: Cable Services Bureau Announces Optional Procedures with Respect to  X-Pending PreMay 15 Benchmark Cases, DA 941556 (Dec. 29, 1994); see also Public Notice: Cable Services Bureau Announces Extension of Time to File Under Optional Procedures Plan  X -with Respect to Pending PreMay 15 Benchmark Cases, DA 9587 (Jan. 20, 1995).  X-x6.` ` As part of its January 21, 1994 filing, Prime Cable requested that the Commission dismiss the December 22, 1993 rate complaint. Prime Cable argues that the complaint should be dismissed because "the complainant did not describe the cable  XH-programming service nor provide a current rate for cable programming service." Hr X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э Response of Prime Cable of Hickory L.P. To A Complaint Concerning Rates In Catawba County, NC, CUID No. NC0175 at 2 (filed Jan. 21, 1994). Prime Cable's assertion does not persuade us that the complaint is invalid or should be dismissed. In general, we will find valid any complaint that states a claim on which relief can be granted and provides adequate information to allow us to process the complaint, despite minor flaws or inaccuracies. We believe this approach best implements the mandate of the 1992 Cable Act. Because the rates listed in answer number 8 and on the attached bill indicate that the complainant received the CPS tier, we find it reasonable to conclude that the complainant objected to the CPS tier rate. We therefore find the complaint dated December 22, 1993 valid  X-and deny Prime Cable's request to dismiss the complaint.7p r X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#эxSee Times Mirror Cable Television of Orange County, Inc. (d/b/a Dimension Cable  X-Services), Laguna Hills, California, CUID No. CA1085, DA 941341, at  6 (Cab. Serv. Bur. released Nov.29, 1994).7  Xy-   Xb-Discussion   X4-x7.` ` Prime Cable asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $12.03 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filing because its price is less than the maximum permitted charge of $12.08 as calculated in its most recent amended filing, dated February 7, 1995. Upon review, however, we have determined that Prime Cable has not correctly calculated its maximum permitted price, and it is therefore appropriate to make the following adjustment to Prime Cable's calculations in Form 393: Xx` ` a. In calculating its Inflation Adjustment Factor in Form 393, Part II, Worksheets 1 and 4, Prime Cable did not rely on the most currently available"| 0*^(^("  X-data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce.hr Xy-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#эxSee Cable Television Rate Regulation: Questions and Answers Relating to FCC  Xd-Form393, Q and A No. 10 (released July 30, 1993) ("The most recent (as of the completion date of the form) GNPPI numbers available to the public should be used").h Rather than relying on data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce on December 1, 1993, Prime Cable relied on data released on August 31, 1993. We therefore must recalculate Prime Cable's Inflation Adjustment Factor using the most accurate  X-data currently available for the date for which Prime Cable filed.Or X -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#эxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(9)(iii) (if a cable operator fails to justify its rates, rates must be adjusted in accordance with the most accurate data available at the time of analysis). On July29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Product Price Index ("GNPPI") figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and 126.5 for the fourth quarter of 1993. Using these GNPPI figures, we calculate an Inflation Adjustment Factor through December 1993, the base date Prime Cable used in justifying its rates, of 1.034.   X -x8.` ` Because of this error, we conclude that Prime Cable has failed to demonstrate that its price for the CPS tier was not unreasonable. We will therefore set a price for this tier, incorporating the adjustment discussed above. This adjustment has the effect of reducing the maximum permitted monthly CPS tier price from $12.08 (as Prime Cable calculated in its February 7, 1995 filing) to $11.98.  Xy- Conclusions   XK-x9.` ` Upon review of the record herein, we conclude that Prime Cable's showing supports a maximum reasonable CPS tier price of $11.98 per month (plus franchise fee) for  X-the period December 27, 1993 to May 14, 1994.nxr X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#эxThis finding is based solely on the representations of Prime Cable listed in paragraph  X-5, supra, and the modification described in paragraph 7, supra. Should information come to our attention that these representations were inaccurate in any material way, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.n However, we further determine that the refund at issue is such a de minimis amount that it would not serve the public interest to order a refund.  X-x10.` ` We further conclude that Prime Cable has submitted in good faith a timely  X-optional supplemental filing in response to our December 29, 1994 Public Notice.+ r X&-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э  Public Notice: Cable Services Bureau Announces Optional Procedures with Respect to  Xq'-Pending PreMay 15 Benchmark Cases, DA 941556 (Dec. 29, 1994). As"0*^(^(4" provide in the Public Notice, we will relieve Prime Cable of its obligation to obtain advance Commission approval of adjustments to its CPS price for one year following the release of  X-this order.` `  X-x11.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the request of Prime Cable of Hickory, L.P. to dismiss the December 22, 1993 complaint against its cable programming service price charged in Catawba County, North Carolina, CUID No. NC0175, IS DENIED.  X1-x12.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the December 22, 1993 complaint against the cable programming service price charged by Prime Cable of Hickory, L.P. in Catawba County, North Carolina, CUID No. NC0175, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.  X -x13.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the benchmark filing submitted by Prime Cable of Hickory, L.P. with respect to Catawba County, North Carolina, CUID No. NC0175, for the period of December 27, 1993 to May 14, 1994, justifies a maximum price of $11.98 per month (plus franchise fee) for the cable programming service tier. x  XK-x14.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.960 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.960, that Prime Cable of Hickory, L. P. shall not be required to obtain advance Commission approval of adjustments to its CPS price for one year following the release of this order. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGregory J. Vogt x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau