WPCli 2BJ Z Courier#|x2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26F/#|xCourierCG TimesCG Times BoldHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\iX@CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic  ЂX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: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) . 2;~,ya2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2m3ya7TechnicalTechnical 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*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxxxxCkkkkkkkkkkPCPCPCPCxxxxxxxxxxkxxxxxxjxjjjxxjxxjxxxxxxxPCxxxxPxxxxCVxHCxxxxxVVx[[[xVCxxxxxxxxjjjxxxxxxPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPkbbxxxxxxTxxxxTPP||x>>xxxxxP|x!T"x}xExPPPxxxxPxkxofxkkPPPPk]kxkPCkkxkxxxkkPxkPPxxxxxxxPxkP8D%nZZB 3nMnMn..s[<?xxx,2x6X@`7X@<r5ddd,Oed6X@`7@`8wC;,Xw PE37XPDa7zC;,c!Xz_ pi7XcDPG, PE37PDbBPG,q_ pi7V"G($,hG PE37hPxxxWIxkWWWWWWWWWW(xxxxxxPxxxxxxxxCxxxxxkkkkk]C]C]C]Cxxxxxxxxxxxxxjjxxjxxjxxxxx[Cxxx]xxC`x]Cxxjjx[][x`RxxjkjxxxxPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPxffxxxxxxTxxxxTPPx>>xxxxxPxT"xxExPPPxxxxPxkxsfxxxPPPPk]kkk]Ckkxkxxxkk]xkPPxxxxxxxPxkP8D%nZZB 3nMnMn..s[2f ^Zji",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L r5-#d6X@`7Oe@#FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Inland Bay Cable TV Associates, Attleboro, MA, MO&O, DA95787//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$  r5-$/benchmark cable rates/$#x6X@`72X@#  cd<        ` hX` hp}#Xw PE37XP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í- Before the 8 Federal Communications Commission  c<Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  Y-X` hp}X` hpxx` `  hh@h pp xx DA 95787  YS -In the Matter of hh@)h x` ` hh@)  Y% -Inland Bay Cable TV Associateshh@)hCUID No. MA0128, Attleboro  Y -x` `  hh@) h  Y -Withdrawal of FCC Form 329hh@) h  Y -Rate Complaint hh@)  Y- Memorandum Opinion and Order ă  Yn- x` ` Adopted: April 11, 1995 hReleased: April 13, 1995 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  Y-    Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1. On April 1, 1994, the City of Attleboro, Massachusetts (the "City") filed a complaint alleging that the price charged by Inland Bay Cable TV Associates ("Inland Bay")  Y-for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in Attleboro was unreasonably high.:B YF-ԍ The complaint was initially filed on February 25, 1994, but it was returned by the Commission on March 16, 1994 pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  76.954. The complainant timely  Y-filed a corrected complaint on April 1, 1994. See 47 C.F.R.  76.955. : On February 6, 1995, the City withdrew its complaint, stating that it was satisfied that Inland Bay's rates are fair and reasonable. The City was the only complainant who filed a complaint with this Commission against the CPS price in Attleboro. Our jurisdiction to regulate CPS rates arises with the filing of a valid complaint against those rates. We will allow the withdrawal of this complaint, and our review of this case will therefore be terminated.  Y -x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Y&-ԍ Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Y&-amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993) (Cable 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"!0*0*0*#"  Y-obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.@?w Yy-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.956.@ Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a"U \+\+\+!"  Y-costofservice showing.C?w Yy-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b).C In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable. x  Y-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.y?w Y-ԍ 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.?w YQ -ԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9  Y-FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) (Second Order on Reconsideration); 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  YH-compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.vHl ?w Ye-ԍ See Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190, paras. 150152.v x  Y - x4. This Commission has now received a letter from the City stating that it wishes to withdraw its CPS rate complaint against Inland Bay. 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  Y -were subject to effective competition."  ?w Yw-ԍ  Conference Report on the Cable Act of 1992, at 62. See also, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed  Y4-Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993) (Rate Order) at 5669. While our rules forbid collusive agreements between operators and local franchising authorities regarding forebearance from rate regulation, there is no evidence of such an agreement here. We will accordingly allow the City to withdraw its complaint. Because our review of the rate justification showing is predicated on the existence of a rate complaint, and because Inland Bay no longer faces such a complaint, we are terminating our review for this community. "\+))"  Y-x5. 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 complaint against the cable programming service rate of Inland Bay Cable TV Associates in Attleboro, Massachusetts, CUID No. MA0128, IS GRANTED and our review of this case IS TERMINATED. x x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` x x` `  hhGregory J. Vogt x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau