FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Columbia Cable of Michigan, Washtenaw County, MI, MO& O, DA 95-182//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. DA 95-182 In the Matter of ) ) Columbia Cable of Michigan) CUID Nos. MI0330, MI0334, MI0636, Washtenaw County, Michigan) MI1141, MI1143 ) Benchmark Filing To Support ) Cable Programming Service Price ) Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopted: February 7, 1995 Released: February 9, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: Introduction 1. Here we consider complaints about the price Columbia Associates d/b/a Columbia Cable of Michigan ("Columbia") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in the Washtenaw County, Michigan communities designated by the CUID numbers referenced above. Columbia has attempted to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This order addresses the reasonableness of Columbia's price only through May 14, 1994. At a later time we will issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the price after that date. 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. Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. Procedural Matters 4. The first complete and timely CPS complaint in each of the franchise areas was completed and served on Columbia and filed with the Commission as set forth in Appendix A. 5. Columbia attempted to justify its CPS price through identical FCC Forms 393 filed on November 24, 1993 for CUID No. MI0330, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and CUID No. MI0334, Ypsilanti, Michigan; on February 7, 1994 for CUID No. MI0636, Pittsfield, Michigan; on February 16, 1994 for CUID No. MI1141, Scio Township, Michigan; and on December 6, 1993 for CUID No. MI1143, Van Buren Township, Michigan. 6. On December 6, 1993, Columbia filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint in CUID No. MI1143, Van Buren Township, Michigan. In its motion, Columbia requests that the Commission dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complainant incorrectly answered question number 8 on FCC Form 329 as it then existed. Columbia argues that the rate entered by the complainant in response to question number 8 was not being charged by Columbia for the basic tier, CPS, or any other service, and therefore it is impossible to tell if the service complained of falls within the statutory definition of cable programming service. On February 7, 1994, Columbia filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint in CUID No. MI0636, Pittsfield, Michigan. In that motion, Columbia requests that the Commission dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complainant incorrectly answered question numbers 8 and 9 on FCC Form 329 as it then existed in that the rate identified in response to question 8 and the services included in response to question 9 included the rate applicable to the basic service tier and channels that were sold on the basic service tier as well as the rate applicable to the CPS tier and channels that were offered on the CPS tier. 7. Columbia's assertions do not persuade us that the complaints are 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 complainants' responses to question number 9 include channels contained on the CPS tier, we find it reasonable to conclude that the complainants objected to the CPS tier rate and that they believed that rate was unreasonable. We therefore find the complaints filed in CUID Nos. MI0636 and MI1143 valid and deny Columbia's Motions to Dismiss. Discussion 8. Columbia asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $11.36 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filings because its price is equal to the maximum permitted charge of $11.36 as calculated in the filings. Upon review of Columbia's Form 393, we have found no apparent errors that would require a recalculation of Columbia's maximum permitted CPS price. Conclusions 9. Upon review of the record herein, we conclude that Columbia has demonstrated that $11.36 (plus franchise fee) was the maximum reasonable CPS tier price for the period from the filing of the earliest complaint in each franchise area (as shown on Appendix A) to May 14, 1994. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the Motions of Columbia Cable of Michigan to dismiss the complaints against its cable programming service price charged in Pittsfield, Michigan, CUID No. MI0636, and Van Buren Township, CUID No. MI1143, ARE DENIED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaints against the cable programming service price charged by Columbia Cable of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, CUID No. MI0330; Ypsilanti, Michigan, CUID No. MI0334; Pittsfield, Michigan, CUID No. MI0636; Scio Township, Michigan, CUID No. MI1141; and Van Buren Township, Michigan, CUID No. CA1143, and all other complaints relating to the same price, ARE DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the benchmark filings submitted by Columbia Cable of Michigan with respect to Ann Arbor, Michigan, CUID No. MI0330; Ypsilanti, Michigan, CUID No. MI0334; Pittsfield, Michigan, CUID No. MI0636; Scio Township, Michigan, CUID No. MI1141; and Van Buren Township, Michigan, CUID No. MI1143, for the period from the filing of the earliest complaint in each franchise area (as shown on Appendix A), justify a maximum price of $11.36 per month (plus franchise fee) for Columbia's cable programming service tier. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau Appendix A CUID No. Date First Complaint Date Complaint Filed With FCC Served 0330 10/15/93 10/13/93 0334 10/12/93 10/5/93 0636 1/18/94 1/10/94 1141 1/24/94 12/28/93 1143 11/8/93 11/5/93