WPC_s 2BJ  Courier3|ws BoldTimes New RomanE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@2 f 6 Z  ",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@\@\`L3|wHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\_)^XP2B vpkCG TimesCG Times Boldf ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`La8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2%k+v;ta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2W   ;a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2%"   U!a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2%W"0#0$%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 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2;(%@&&'a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2n+m(/))3;*a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical 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)Documentg21+e/ 00PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:#-Prime Cable has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second  X)$-Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  X%-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 Time Warner implemented its CPS price under  X'-the new regulations. See para. 3, infra.#x6X@`72X@##Xw PE37XP#ѱ "0*0*0*h"Ԍ X-x2.` ` Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,, Yy-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xPub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Yd-amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993). and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must"! 0*0*0*z" 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.? 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.z? 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.,? X -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xId.Ĉ  Xv-x3.` ` The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.av? 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 ? Yu-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#x47 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.  ? Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#xSee Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 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. ? XP-#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.  |? Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP#x47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4189 n.195.  X- Procedural Matters   Xb-x4.` ` The first valid CPS complaints were completed and served on Time Warner on September 20, 1993. The Commission received the complaints on September 23, 1993.  X-x5.` ` Time Warner attempted to justify its CPS price through an FCC Form 393 filed on November 15, 1993. Time Warner amended its justification on June 24, 1994 in response to a Cable Services Bureau Order citing common deficiencies observed in benchmark filings" 0*0*0*'"  X-generally. ? Xy-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#эxCable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, DA 94526, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994).  X-   X-Discussion  x  X-x6.` ` Time Warner asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $11.93 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filing because its price is equal to the maximum permitted charge of $11.93 as calculated in the filing. Upon review of Time Warner's Form 393, we have found no apparent errors that would result in Time Warner's CPS tier price exceeding its  X1-maximum permitted price.   X -Conclusions   X -x7.` ` Upon review of the record herein, we conclude that Time Warner's showing supports a CPS tier price of $11.93 per month (plus franchise fee) for the period of  X -September 23, 1993 to May 14, 1994 in CUID Nos. NC0028 and NC0512. x d? Y-  Ѝ#Xw PE37}XP# This finding is based solely on the representations of Time Warner listed in  Y-paragraph 5, supra. Should information come to our attention that these representations  Y-(including representations as to data regarding installations and customer equipment) were  Yy-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 made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.   Xy-x8.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the September 20, 1993 complaints against the cable programming service price charged by Time Warner Cable in Raleigh, North Carolina, CUID Nos. NC0028 and NC0512, and all other complaints relating to the same price, ARE DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. x  X-x9. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the benchmark filing submitted by Time" 0*0*0*" Warner Cable with respect to CUID Nos. NC0028 and NC0512, for the period of September 23, 1994 to May 14, 1994, justifies a price of $11.93 per month (plus franchise fee) for Time Warner Cable's cable programming service tier. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGregory J. Vogt x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau  ? <#x6X@`7X@#