FOR FCC RECORD ONLY
$//C & R Cablevision, Weatherford, TX, MO&O, DA 95-634//$
$/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$
$/benchmark cable rates/$
                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20554
            
                              DA 95-634

In the Matter of:                  )
                              )    
C& R Cablevision                        )    CUID No. TX2078
Weatherford, Texas                 )
                              )
Order Denying Jurisdiction              )

                    
                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  March 28, 1995                                         Released:  March 30, 1995

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.  In this Order we dismiss a complaint against the price C & R Cablevision  ("C &
R") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in Weatherford, Texas,
CUID No. TX2078, on the ground that the complaint concerns 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 complaint filed against C & R Cable, while asserting that it challenges CPS
rates, challenges only rates for equipment associated with basic service, not for CPS.  The
complaint therefore does not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction, and it is 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 this case, C & R filed a motion to dismiss the complaint stating that the
"system has no cable programming service tier against which a complaint may be filed." 
The channel line-up attached to the complaint supports this assertion.
  
     4.  The complaint under consideration here was 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 complaint and C & R's motion, and we conclude that the
complaint challenges only charges for equipment associated with the basic tier, not CPS
rates.  Although the complainant indicates that the rates challenged violate the Commission's
rules, the specific information provided by the complainant indicates that only rates for
equipment associated with the basic tier are at issue.  When only rates associated with the
basic tier 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 complaint does in fact challenge CPS rates, the complainant may file a petition for
reconsideration providing information adequate to support his 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
complaint filed prior to May 15, 1994, against the cable programming service price charged
by C & R Cablevision in Weatherford, Texas, CUID No. TX2078, IS 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