FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
$//Vision Cable, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 95-623//$
$/Cable Rates, Part 76, Subpart N/$
$/withdrawal of cable rate complaints/$

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

                     DA 95-623

In the matter of  )     
 )
Vision Cable of Wilmington   )     NC0408, NC0409                       
      )
Vision Cable of Jacksonville )     NC0283, NC0585, NC0586               
      )
Vision Cable of Houma  )     LA0013, LA0224   
      )
Vision Cable of Alpine )     LA0007, LA0051, LA0431, LA0226,            
      )     LA0104
      )
Vision Cable of Shelby )     NC0523, NC0756   
      )     
Withdrawal of FCC Form 329   )     
Rate Complaints        )


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

      Adopted:  March 27, 1995        Released:  April 3, 1995

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

 1.  For each of the communities listed above, complaints were filed alleging that the
prices charged by the Vision Cable entity named in the caption ("Vision") in that community
for cable programming service tier ("CPS") services were unreasonably high.  Subsequently,
several complainants withdrew their complaints, stating that they were satisfied that Vision's
CPS prices were, and had been, reasonable.  In every case, the withdrawn complaint was the
only valid complaint against Vision in that community.  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 these filings will be terminated.    

 2.  In addition, Vision has requested that the Bureau accept withdrawals of complaints
in communities where the Bureau has already issued a memorandum opinion and order
addressing the reasonableness of Vision's CPS prices.  Vision further requests that the Bureau
vacate its existing orders insofar as they address the CPS prices in communities from which
the Bureau has received letters seeking to withdraw all valid complaints.  We find that it
would not be in the public interest, however, to permit withdrawal of a complaint after a
refund order has been issued.  We will not revisit such an order outside the context of a
petition for reconsideration or an application for review from the subject operator. We are
accordingly confining the scope of this Order to communities for which no Bureau
memorandum opinion and order has been released.

 3.  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.
 
 4.  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.
 
 5.  Under our rules, this Commission's authority to regulate CPS cable rates arises
when a valid complaint against those rates is filed.  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."  Because our
review of the rate justification showing is predicated on the existence of a rate complaint, in
those communities where Vision no longer faces a rate complaint, we will terminate our
review of Vision's filing.  
 
 6.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321, that permission to withdraw the FCC Form 329 rate complaints
against the cable programming service rates of  the Vision Cable entities captioned above IS
GRANTED.

 7.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the review of the rate justification filings in the
communities listed above IS TERMINATED.
 
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                     Gregory J. Vogt
                     Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau