FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
$//City of Alpena et al., MO&O, DA 95-232//$
$/Cable Rate Regulation, 47 C.F.R. 76.922 et seq./$
$/Withdrawal of Rate Complaints/$

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

                                                                  DA 95-232
                                                                  CORRECTED

In the matter of      )     
     )     
Withdrawal of FCC Form 329  )     
Rate Complaints Against:          )
     )
TCI Cablevision of Greater        )    MI0084  City of Alpena 
Michigan              )
     )
American Cablevision  )     PA1775  Peyton C. Watkins    
     )
Paragon Cable         )     MN0200  Southwest Suburban  
                      )     Cable Commission
     )
Multimedia Cablevision)     IL1055  Village of Villa Park           
     )
TV Transmission Inc.  )     NE0032  City of Lincoln     
d/b/a/ Lincoln Cablevision        )
     )
Charter Communications)     GA0099  City of Manchester


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  February 14, 1995        Released:  February 17, 1995

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.  In each of the cases noted above, the local franchising authority (LFA) or another
complainant filed a complaint with this Commission alleging that the prices charged for cable
programming service tier (CPS) services in its community were unreasonably high.  These
complaints, and the cable operators, complainants, and filing dates, are noted at Attachment
A.  Later, these complainants wrote to the Commission to withdraw their CPS complaints. 
There was only one complainant who filed with this Commission in each of these
communities.  Our jurisdiction to regulate CPS rates arises with the filing of a valid complaint
against those rates.  We will allow the withdrawal of these complaints, and our review of
these filings will therefore be terminated. 

     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.  In each case captioned above, the operator did file either an FCC Form 393
benchmark rate justification submission, or a cost of service rate justification submission.
     
     4.  This Commission has now received from each of the captioned complainants a
letter stating that it wishes to withdraw its CPS rate complaint against the operator.  Under
our rules, this Commission's authority to regulate CPS cable rates arises when a valid
complaint against those rates is filed.  In every case noted here, the complainant is the only
complainant against this operator in this community.  Our mandate is to "protect subscribers
of any cable system that is not subject to effective competition from rates that exceed the
rates that would be charged if such a system were subject to effective competition."  While
our rules forbid collusive agreements between operators and local franchising authorities
regarding forebearance from rate regulation, there is no evidence of such an agreement here.  
We will accordingly allow these complainants to withdraw their complaints.  Because our
review of the rate justification showings is predicated on the existence of a rate complaint,
and because in every case listed here, the operator no longer faces a rate complaint, we are
terminating our review of those filings. 

     5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that permission to withdraw the FCC Form 329
rate complaints against cable programming service rates in the above-noted communities IS
GRANTED, and the review of the resulting rate justification filings IS TERMINATED.


     
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




     Gregory J. Vogt
     Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau
                                                                                                  Attachment A

     
CPS Complaint Withdrawals



CUID No., Local Franchising Operator   Complaints  Complaints                                
Authority/Complainant  Filed      Withdrawn

     

MI0084  City of Alpena TCI Cablevision  10/08/93         09/09/94
      of Greater Michigan

PA1775  Peyton C. Watkins    American Cablevision   01/31/94   05/14/94

MN0200  Southwest Suburban   Paragon Cable    11/04/93   05/18/94
                 Cable Commission

IL1055  Village of Villa ParkMultimedia Cablevision      11/15/93   10/25/94

NE0032  Roger Templin  TV Transmission Inc.   10/11/93   01/16/95
      d/b/a/ Lincoln Cablevision
   City of  Lincoln    02/24/94    01/23/95

GA0099  City of Manchester   Charter Communications 12/09/94   01/09/95