FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Paragon Cable, Portland, Multnomah County, and Linnton, OR, MO&O, DA 95-5298//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. DA 95-529 In the Matter Of ) ) Paragon Cable ) CUID Nos. OR0241, OR0305, OR0306, Portland, Multnomah County, and Linnton) OR0307, OR0308, OR0334, Oregon ) OR0366 ) Benchmark Filings to Justify Cable ) Programming Service Rates ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 17, 1995 Released: March 20, 1995 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. Here we consider complaints about the prices Paragon Cable ("Paragon") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in the Oregon communities designated by the CUID numbers referenced above. Paragon has chosen to attempt to justify its prices through benchmark showings on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Paragon's prices only through May 14, 1994. At a later time we will issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the prices 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 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 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 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 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. 4. Paragon filed motions to dismiss several of the complaints in the communities which are the subject of this Order, including the complaints of the Consolidated Cable Communications Commission in all of the communities which are the subject of this Order. The Consolidated Cable Communications Commission filed a reply, and Paragon filed a response. 5. Paragon requests that the Commission dismiss each of the complaints as to which it filed a motion to dismiss for one or more of the following reasons. First, Paragon asserts that some complainants either failed to answer question number 8 on FCC Form 329 as it existed prior to January 1994 (requesting the complainant to identify the rate complained about), or incorrectly answered question number 8 because they included rates for service on the basic tier, a la carte services and equipment, as well as for service on the CPS tier. Second, Paragon asserts that some complainants incorrectly answered question number 9 because they included channels that are offered on an a la carte basis. Finally, Paragon states that some complainants attached addenda to the complaints addressing charges other than the CPS tier rate. 6. Paragon's assertions do not persuade us that the first filed complaints in the franchise areas addressed in this Order 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 each complainant's response to question number 9 includes channels contained on the CPS tier and because the rates listed in response to question number 8 include rates for services in the CPS tier, we find it reasonable to conclude that the complainants objected to the CPS tier rates and that they believed that those rates were unreasonable. 7. Paragon asserts that its monthly CPS prices are justified by its benchmark filings because these prices are equal to or below the maximum permitted charges. Upon review, we have found no apparent errors that would require a recalculation of Paragon's maximum permitted CPS prices. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the motions of Paragon Cable to dismiss the earliest filed complaints in Multnomah County, Oregon, CUID Nos. OR0305, OR0306, OR0307, OR0308, and OR0334, and Linnton, Oregon, CUID No. OR0366 ARE DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the complaints referenced herein against the cable programming service prices charged by Paragon Cable in Portland, Oregon, CUID No. OR0241; Multnomah County, Oregon, CUID Nos. OR0305, OR0306, OR0307, OR0308, and OR0334; and Linnton, Oregon, CUID No. OR0366 ARE DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gregory J. Vogt Deputy Chief, Cable Service Bureau