$//Shen-Heights TV Associates et al. MO&O, DA 95-549//$
$/Withdrawal of Cable Rate Complaints/$
$/Cable Rate Regulation, Part 76 Subpart N/$
FOR RECORD ONLY

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20554
          
          DA 95-549

In the Matter of     )
          )
Shen-Heights TV Associates      )    PA0488  Shenandoah, PA
          )
Paragon Cable        )     CA0941  Torrance, CA
          )
Withdrawal of Rate Complaints        )          
Concerning Cable Services Rates      )
          
     
                                   ORDER

          Adopted:  March 20, 1995       Released: March 22, 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 and filing dates, are noted at Attachment A.  Later, these
complainants wrote to the Commission to withdraw their CPS complaints.  In the case of
Shen-Heights TV Associates, there was only one complainant who filed with this Commission
to complain about CPS rates.  In the case of Paragon Cable in Torrance, other valid
complaints remain.  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 the Shen-Heights filing 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 one complainant in each of the captioned
communities 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 the Shen-Heights case, 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 Shen-Heights TV Associates no longer faces a rate
complaint, we are terminating our review of that filing.  Paragon Cable in Torrance, on the
other hand, faces additional valid complaints, so this action does not terminate our review
there.

     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.

     
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




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

     
CPS Complaint Withdrawals



CUID No., Community   Operator   Complaint   Complaint  
      Filed     Withdrawn


CA0941  City of Torrance         Paragon Cable    2/28/94     2/24/95

PA0488  Shenandoah    Shen-Heights TV Assoc. 1/12/94    2/27/95