WPCW 2BJ Z Courier3|xw RomanTimes New Roman BoldX@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:<eWashington, D.C. ă  aH< DA 95317 ĐX(#P  X\ -#Xj\  P6G;XP#  XE -In the Matter of:  hh@) x` `  hh@)  X -TCI Cablevision of Maryland, Inc.hh@)hCUID No. MD0062  X -Cecil County, Marylandhh@) x` `  hh@)  X-Benchmark Filing To Supporthh@)  X-Cable Programming Service Priceshh@)  X-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  X_-Adopted: February 21, 1995hh@ Released: February 22, 1995 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X-x1.` ` Here we consider a complaint about the price TCI Cablevision of Maryland, Inc. ("TCI") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in Cecil County, Maryland, CUID No. MD0062. TCI has chosen to attempt to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of TCI's price only through May 14, 1994. At a later time we will issue a separate order addressing  X-the reasonableness of the price after that date.XO U Y -#Xj\  P6G;XP#э#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 extent TCI 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 Rulemaking, MM  Y!-Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 ("Second Order on Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS price determined herein might also apply from May 15, 1994 until  Y#-the date on which TCI implemented its CPS price under the new regulations.  See para. 3,  Ym$-infra.#x6X@`72X@#X  Xb-x2.` ` Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of"b0*0*0*"  X-1992,B U Yy-#Xj\  P6G;XP#э #Xw PE37XP#Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) ("1992 Cable Act"); Communications  Yc-Act,  623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993).#x6X@`72X@#B 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"| 0*0*0*"  X-justification of its CPS prices.2 Yy-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956.#x6X@`7X@#ѵ Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices  X-through either a benchmark showing or a costofservice showing.z2 Y<#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956(b)#x6X@`7X@#. In either case, the  X-operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable.,2 X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#Id.#x6X@`7X@#Ѩ  X-x3.` ` The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.j2 Y3 -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042  Y -(Aug. 2, 1993).#x6X@`7X@#j  X-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.b 2 Y<#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#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 prices were in  X1-compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.1 2 Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190,  150152.#x6X@`7X@# Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must  X -complete and file FCC Form 393.  2 X{-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#Id.#x6X@`7X@#Ѩ Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning  X -May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series.  y2 Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd  Y-at4189 n.195.#x6X@`7X@#  X -x4.` ` TCI asserts that its CPS tier price of $8.77 per month is justified by its benchmark filing because its price is equal to the maximum permitted charge of $8.77, as TCI calculated in its amended FCC Form 393 filed May 17, 1994. Upon review, we have found no apparent errors that would require a recalculation of TCI's maximum permitted CPS  Xb-price.  V b2 X(#-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э While TCI's Form 393, Part III, Schedule A does not show any maintenance facility expense and its Schedule B Analysis does not show any contract labor expense, correction of those entries does not result in a reduction of TCI's maximum permitted CPS tier price.V "K 0*(("  X-x5.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint referenced herein against the cable programming service price charged by TCI Cablevision of Maryland, Inc. in Cecil County,  X-Maryland, CUID No. MD0062, IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.K 2 Y-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э #Xw PE37}XP#This finding is based solely on the representations of TCI. 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 made by any party to this proceeding  Y -not specifically addressed herein.#x6X@`7X@#K x FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gregory J. Vogt Deputy Chief, Cable Service Bureau x` `  hh@