WPCi 2BJ Z Courier3|x BoldCG Times Bold@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26F ,3|x CourierCourier Bold1HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\iX@CourierCourier BoldCG Times BoldCG TimesCG Times Italic2<Z~ vpZCourierCourier BoldCG Times BoldCG TimesCG Times Italic?xxx,)x `7X<r5ddd,Oed6X@`7@s4ddd,鑡d `7"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxprepi !328^f Rh4J4 T",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2 f j^Zi",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L a< #d6X@`7Oe@# -#G6X@`7g@##G6X@`7g@##_ pi7"##Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LWashington, D.C.  a(< #Xw PE37XP# DA 95644  Y-#Xw PE37XP#In the Matter Of  hh@)  Y-Cencom Cable Entertainment, Inc.hh@)hCUID No. SC0094, Clinton, SC x` `  hh@)  Y-Benchmark Filing to Justify Cable hh@)  Y -Programming Service Ratehh@)  Yz -}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  YM-Adopted: March 29, 1995 hh@hppReleased: March 30, 1995 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1. Here we consider a complaint about the price Cencom Cable Entertainment, Inc., ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in the community referenced above. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Operator's price only through May 14, 1994. At a later time we will issue a separate order addressing the  Y~-reasonableness of the price after that date.EN~ Y<ԍ #Xw PE37XP# The findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent the operator has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  Y-Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 ("Second Order on  Y-Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS price determined herein might also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date on which the operator implemented its CPS price under the  YZ-new regulations.  See para. 3, infra.#x6X@`72X@#E  YP-x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,P Y"<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) ("1992 Cable Act");  Y#-Communications Act,  623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993).#x6X@`72X@# 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  Y-of its CPS prices.z  Y)<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956.#x6X@`72X@#ю Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through"+ 0*0*0*"  Y-either a benchmark showing or a costofservice showing.q- Yy<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956(b)#x6X@`7X@#. In either case, the operator has  Y-the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable.yq- W<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#Id.#x6X@`7X@#с  Y-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.C*q- Y<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed.  Yh -Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).#x6X@`7X@#C  Y-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.q- Y <ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)#x6X@`7X@#. 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  YH-prices were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.H^ q- YW<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#See Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190, paras. 150152.#x6X@`7X@# Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark  Y -showing must complete and file FCC Form 393.   q- W<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#Id.#x6X@`7X@#с Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC  Y -Form 1200 series.  q- Y_<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC  YJ-Rcd at 4189 n.195.#x6X@`7X@#  Y - x4. On February 2, 1994, Operator filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint because the complainant, a municipal entity, failed to submit a copy of its cable bill. We do not require municipal entities to submit cable bills since they are not expected to subscribe to the cable service at issue. We therefore deny Operator's motion. x5. Operator asserts that its monthly CPS price is justified by its benchmark filing because this price is less than the maximum permitted charge. Upon review, we have found no apparent errors that would result in Operator's actual CPS price exceeding its maximum  Y-permitted CPS price.  U ^q- Y%<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#This finding is based solely on the representations of the operator. Should information come to our attention that these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as a finding"& 0*(('" that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any  Yy-party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.#x6X@`7X@#U"b 0*(( "Ԍx6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that Operator's motion to dismiss the complaint referenced herein IS DENIED. x7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint referenced herein against the cable programming service price charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gregory J. Vogt Deputy Chief, Cable Service Bureau x` `  hh@