WPCp 2BJ Z Courier3|xw RomanCG Times@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@2 6F v3|xCourierTimes New RomanHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\:WX@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2=pRkk-a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2votY a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2  o  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 22   Y 2 a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2d 4Ba1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2"o1a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2 3oea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\] X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Cox Cable Saginaw, Inc., Saginaw, MI, MO&O, DA95220//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tier/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$  a<#Xw PE37XP##Xw PE37XP##x6X@`72X@#- #G6X@`7g@# #G6X@`7g@# #_ pi7"##Before the l Federal Communications Commission LWashington, D.C. DA 95220  Y -#Xw PE37XP#In the Matter Of  hh@) x` `  hh@)  Y -Cox Cable Saginaw, Inc. hh@)hCUID Nos.MI0145, MI0146, MI0148  Y -Saginaw, Michigan hh@)hpp MI0229, MI0230, MI1166(#(#X  Ym-  hh@)  YV-Benchmark Filings To Supporthh@)  Y?-Cable Programming Service Priceshh@)  Y- Memorandum Opinion and Order ă  Y-Adopted: February 10, 1995hh@hppReleased: February 14, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X- Introduction  YZ-x 1. Here we consider complaints about the price Cox Cable Saginaw, Inc. ("Cox") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in its Saginaw, Michigan cable  Y,-system, CUID Nos. MI0145, MI0146, MI0148, MI0229, MI0230, and MI1166.,N Y<ԍ#Xw PE37XP#According to Cox, CUID numbers MI0145, MI0146, MI0148, MI0229, MI0230, and MI1166 together constitute a single cable system and have the same programming and rates. Cox has chosen to attempt to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This order addresses the reasonableness of Cox's price only through May 14, 1994. At a later  Y-time we will issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the price after that date.s|KN Y#<ԍ#Xw PE37XP# The 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  Y%-extent Cox has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  Y'-Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 ("Second Order on  Yt(-Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS price determined herein might also apply"t(0*0*0*(" from May 15, 1994 until the date on which Cox implemented its CPS price under the new  Yy-regulations. See para. 3, infra.#x6X@`72X@#s"d0*0*0*"Ԍ "c 0*0*0*<"Ԍ Y-x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,N Yy<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) ("1992 Cable Act"); Communications  Yb-Act,  623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993).#x6X@`7X@# and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a complete and timely complaint. The filing of a complete and timely complaint triggers an   obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification  Y-of its CPS prices.dN Y<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956.#x6X@`7X@#ь Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through  Y-either a benchmark showing or a costofservice showing.N YS <ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956(b)#x6X@`7X@#. In either case, the operator has  Yv-the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable.vN W <ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#Id.#x6X@`7X@#  YH-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.aHwN Yp<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Consumer  Y[-Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042  YF-(Aug. 2, 1993).#x6X@`7X@#a  Y1-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.1 N Y<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#See Second Order on Reconsideration at 4119; 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)#x6X@`7X@#. Operators with complete and timely 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  Y -prices were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. N Y7<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#See Second Order on Reconsideration at 4190, paras. 150152.#x6X@`7X@#Ѹ Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark  Y -showing must complete and file FCC Form 393. dN W<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#Id.#x6X@`7X@# Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC  Yy-Form 1200 series. yN Y?"<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration at 4189 n.195.#x6X@`7X@#  Xb-   X-Procedural Matters " 0*0*0*"Ԍ x4. The first complete and timely CPS complaints in the franchise areas addressed in this Order were completed and served on Cox and received by the Commission on the dates  Y-set forth in Appendix A._ x4 Y<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#Cox has not complied with 47 C.F.R.  76.956(a), which requires it to state when service occurred. Under these circumstances, we will consider the mailing date indicated by  Y-the complainant as the service date.#x6X@`7X@#_ x5. Cox filed initial FCC Forms 393 on June 1, 1994 for all franchise areas in response to the complaints addressed in this order. In the case of Cox Cable Saginaw, Inc.'s Buena Vista Charter Township franchise, CUID No. MI0229, an amended Form 393 was filed with the Commission on June 22, 1994.  X - Discussion x6. Cox asserts that its monthly CPS price of $11.43 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filing because its price is equal to the maximum permitted charge as calculated in it most recent filing, dated May 26, 1994. Upon review, we have found no apparent errors that would require a recalculation of Cox's maximum permitted CPS price.  XK- Conclusions x7. Upon review of the record herein, we conclude that Cox has demonstrated that $11.43 per subscriber per month, plus franchise fee, was a reasonable CPS tier price for the period from the date the first complaint was received by the Commission for each franchise  Y-area, as noted in Appendix A, to May 14, 1994.S Kx4 Y<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#This finding is based solely on the representations of Cox listed in paragraph 5,  Y-supra. Should information come to our attention that these representations were materially inaccurate, 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  Yx-made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.#x6X@`7X@#S x8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the cable programming service price charged by Cox Cable Saginaw, Inc. of Saginaw, Michigan in CUID Nos. MI0145, MI0146, MI0148, MI0229, MI0230, and MI1166, and all other complaints relating to the same price, ARE DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. "  0*(("Ԍ x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the benchmark filing submitted by Cox Cable Saginaw, Inc. of Saginaw, Michigan, for CUID Nos. MI0145, MI0146, MI0148, MI0229, MI0230, and MI1166, for the period from the date the first complaint was received by the Commission for each franchise area, as noted in Appendix A, to May 14, 1994, justifies a maximum price of $11.43 per month (plus franchise fee) for Cox Cable Saginaw, Inc.'s cable programming service tier. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Service Bureau "#' 0*((P("Ԍ Y-ԙ, Appendix A  Y-  Y-CUID No.` `  Date First ComplaintppDate Complaint  Y-x` `  Filed with FCChppServed  YI-MI0145` `  10/08/93@hpp10/02/93  Y2-MI0146` `  10/12/93@hpp09/29/93  Y -MI0148` `  10/12/93@hpp10/06/93  Y -MI0229` `  12/06/93@hpp10/05/93  Y -MI0230` `  10/18/93@hpp10/14/93  Y -MI1166` `  10/18/93@hpp10/12/93  Y -x` `  hh@