WPCd 2BJ Courier3|w s BoldTimes New Roman BoldXPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2K 6f F Z E 3|w ",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@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4XR  P7jQ\oeXP c-#XR  P7jQXP#29v} p kcka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2kvta2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2q  i  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2 b*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-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2\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) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2ja2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2G$3C 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)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx>>>>>>999 @44 @4  FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Wometco Cable TV of Georgia, MO&O, DA 95560//$ $/Part 76 Subpart N Cable Rate Regulation/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$  a< #Xw PE37XP# ` `   #4  pG;#hh, Before the b Federal Communications Commission  a<Washington, D.C. 20554  a< `(#=#XP\  P6QXP# DA 95560 ă  Y -#XR  P7jQXP#In the Matter of hh,V)  Y -` `  hh,V)  Yz -Wometco Cable TV of Georgia, Inc.V)CUID No. GA0222  Yc -` `  hh,V)Duluth, Georgia  xx- X(#(#  YL-Benchmark Filing to Supporthh,V)pp    Y5-Cable Programming Service Pricehh,V)pp   xx- X(#(# ` `  hh,  X-` `   Memorandum Opinion and Order  Y-` ` Adopted: March 22, 1995VReleased: March 27, 1995 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  Yf-   1. Here we consider complaints about the price Wometco Cable TV of Georgia, Inc. ("Operator") was charging for cable service in Duluth, Georgia, CUID No. GA0222. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393.  Y-2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,.ȝ YU-#XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP#э#Xw PE37XP# Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Y@ -amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993).. and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review a cable operator's prices for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable  Y -operator to file a justification of its CPS prices. fȝ Y%-#XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP#э#Xw PE37XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.956. Under our rules, an operator may attempt  Yi!-to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a costofservice showing.i!ȝ Y2(-#XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP#э#Xw PE37XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b). In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not"R"0*0*0*#"  Y -unreasonable. M Y(-#XP\  P6QyoXP##XP\  P6QyoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP# Id.ħ" }0*0*0*!"Ԍ" }0*0*0*!"Ԍ Y-3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.`M Yy-#XP\  P6QyoXP##XP\  P6QyoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP# Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).`  Y-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.LM Y-#XP\  P6QyoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP# See Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994)  Y-("Second Order on Reconsideration") at 4119; 47 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  Y-compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.M Y-#XP\  P6QyoXP##XP\  P6QyoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP# See Second Order on Reconsideration at 4190, paras. 150152. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must  Y_-complete and file FCC Form 393._ M Y-#XP\  P6QyoXP##XP\  P6QyoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP# Id.ħ Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200  Y1-series. 19 M Y-#XP\  P6QyoXP##XP\  P6QyoXP#э#Xw PE37}XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration at 4189 n.195.  Y -   Y -    4. The complaints filed against Operator for the community designated by the abovelisted CUID number state that they are being filed to object to a rate increase for the CPS tier offered by Operator. Under the Commission's rules, a complaint regarding a rate change for the CPS tier may be filed within 45 days from the date the complainant first  Y -receives a bill reflecting the rate change.   M YD-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.953(b). Complaints about rates in effect on September 1, 1993 must be filed by February 28, 1994. 47 C.F.R.  76.953(a). Each of the complaints addressed in this Order was filed after February 28, 1994.  However, after reviewing the record in this case, we have determined that these complaints do not relate to changes in Operator's regulated CPS rates. Rather, the complaints object to changes in Operator's rates for basic tier service, associated equipment charges for receiving basic tier service, and a la carte packages that are not subject to rate regulation. The Commission is responsible for, and its  Y4-jurisdiction is limited to, regulating rates for cable programming services.G 4oM YT$-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  522.G Accordingly, we find that we are without jurisdiction to consider the complaints discussed herein and shall dismiss them. 5. As of September 1, 1993, Operator offered subscribers a basic service tier, a CPS tier, and an a la carte package in the community addressed herein. Prior to September 1,"" 0*0*0*" 1993, Operator removed three channels from previously regulated tiers into an a la carte package. At the same time, Operator replaced these channels on the regulated tiers with new channels. Operator did not change its price for the preexisting CPS tier. Therefore, there was no change in the rate charged for the CPS tier that could constitute the basis for a valid complaint. 6. To the extent that these complaints object to changes in the rate charged for the basic tier and associated equipment, we lack jurisdiction to consider those complaints. Except in limited circumstances, the Commission does not act upon complaints concerning rates for that tier. When only basic rates are being challenged, the complaint should properly be brought to the attention of the local franchising authority in the first instance, and not filed with this Commission. 7. As for Operator's a la carte package, we note that the Cable Services Bureau has released orders resolving letters of inquiry ("LOIs") regarding other, similarly structured  YK-systems.5 KM Y-ԍ See, e.g., Cablevision Industries, Wake Forest, North Carolina, LOI 947, DA 941550 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Dec. 22, 1994); Comcast Cablevision, City of Tallahassee, Florida, LOI 932, DA 941275 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Nov. 18, 1994). 5 Relying on the Commission's Going Forward Order,m KMM YI-ԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order, and  Y-Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 93215, FCC 94286,  51 (adopted November 10, 1994).m the Bureau's orders addressed the restructured service offerings implemented beginning September 1, 1993, in which operators eliminated or cut back CPS tiers and offered a la carte channels. In the orders that present fact patterns most similar to Operator's here, the Bureau found that the restructured service offerings do not constitute a clear evasion of our rate rules. With regard to the channels moved to a la carte packages, the orders permit the operator to treat its a la  Y-carte packages as new product tiers that may be priced at market levels under the Going  Y-Forward Order.M Y"-ԍ See, e.g., Century Cable Television, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 941627 (Cab. Serv. Bur. released Jan. 3, 1995), at para. 56. We feel that we have sufficient information regarding Operator's  Y-restructured offerings in the subject communities to conclude, in accord with the Going  Y-Forward Order, that they should be treated the same way. As in the communities in the cited orders, the small number of channels that were offered in the a la carte packages did not constitute an evasion of our then existing rules. Therefore, consistent with the action taken in the LOI orders, we will allow Operator to treat its a la carte packages in the subject communities as new product tiers even though they would not qualify as new product tiers"*Y 0*0*0*"  Y-under the Going Forward Order because one of the conditions for a new product tier is that channels may not be removed from a basic service tier or a CPS tier.  Y-  8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the cable programming service price charged by the Operator in the community referenced above ARE DISMISSED. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Gregory J. Vogt ` `  hh,Deputy Chief ` `  hh,Cable Services Bureau