FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
$//Russell Cable Television Company, MO&O, DA95-613//$
$/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service Tiers/$
$/benchmark cable rates$

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20554
                                                  
                                                  DA 95-613

In the Matter of:                  )
                              )    
Russell Cable Television Company        )    CUID No. KS0025 
Russell, Kansas                    )
                              )    
Classic Cable                      )    CUID No. KS0158 
Anthony, Kansas                    )
                              )
Douglas Cable                 )    CUID No. KS0306 
Axtell, Kansas                )
                              )
USA Cablesystems, Inc.             )    CUID No. MS0395
Carriere, Mississippi                   )
                              )
Tennessee Cablevision              )    CUID No. TN0045
Oak Ridge, Tennessee               )
                              )
Overton County Cable TV            )    CUID No. TN0220
Livingston, Tennessee              )                        
                              )    
Order Denying Jurisdiction              )

                    
                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: March 24, 1995                            Released: March 28, 1995  

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.   In this Order we dismiss complaints against the prices the above referenced
operators were charging for their cable programming service ("CPS") tiers in the above
referenced communities, on the ground that the complaints concern rates that are outside the
jurisdiction and authority of this Commission.  As explained below, the Commission
regulates rates for CPS only, and then only upon filing of a valid complaint.  Our review
reveals that the complaints filed against the operator, while asserting that they challenge CPS
rates, challenge only rates for basic service, not for CPS.  The complaints therefore do not
trigger the Commission's jurisdiction, and they are accordingly dismissed.

     2.   The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992
("Cable Act of 1992") distinguishes among basic cable service, premium cable service, and
cable programming service.  The basic service tier is the minimum package of cable service
that a consumer can buy.  Except in limited circumstances, the Commission does not have
jurisdiction over rates for the basic service tier, and cannot act upon complaints concerning
rates for that tier.  Premium cable service consists of channels that are paid for individually
(per-channel) or per-program.  By statute, these channels are not subject to rate regulation. 
CPS includes all video programming that is not on the basic service tier which the operator
offers as a package of channels.  Rates for CPS tiers are subject to regulation by the
Commission in response to a valid complaint.   

     3.    In these cases, the operators have indicated that as of September 1, 1993, they
only offered one tier of service in the communities addressed in this Order.  The channel
line-ups and rate cards that the operators have submitted support their assertion.
  
     4.    The complaints under consideration here were filed with the Commission on 
FCC Form 329.  FCC Form 329 is used by subscribers or local franchising authorities
wishing to lodge with the Commission a complaint about an operator's CPS rates.  The form 
is entitled "Cable Programming Service Rate Complaint."  While the form is designed for
use in challenging CPS tier rates, the definition of CPS tier rates is not made clear on the
face of the form and it is possible that someone might complete the form without
understanding the difference between basic tier rates, premium service rates, and CPS tier
rates.  

     5.    We have examined the complaints and the operators' responses, and we
conclude that the complaints challenge only basic rates, not CPS rates.  Although the
complainants indicate that the rates challenged violate the Commission's rules, the specific
information provided by the complainants indicates that only basic rates are at issue.  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.  If the complaints do in fact challenge CPS rates, the complainants may file a
petition for reconsideration providing information adequate to support their challenge.

     6.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 623(a)(2)(A) and (B) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(2)(A) and (B), that the
complaints filed prior to May 14, 1994, against the cable programming service prices
charged by Russell Cable Television Company, in Russell, Kansas, CUID No. KS0025;
Classic Cable, in Anthony, Kansas, CUID No. KS0158; Douglas Cable, in Axtell, Kansas,
CUID No. KS0306; USA Cablesystems, Inc., in Carriere, Mississippi, CUID No. MS0395;
Tennessee Cablevision, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, CUID No. TN0045; and Overton County
Cable TV, in Livingston, Tennessee, CUID No. TN0220 ARE DISMISSED.
     
     7.    This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321. 
     
     
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





     Gregory J. Vogt
     Deputy Chief,  Cable Services Bureau