NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Paragon Cable, Minneapolis, MN, MO&O, DA 95-899//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. DA 95-899 In the Matter Of ) ) CUID No. MN0180 (Minneapolis) Paragon Cable ) ) Benchmark Filing to Justify Cable ) Programming Service Rates ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 21, 1995 Released: April 26, 1995 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. Here we consider complaints about the prices Paragon Cable ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tiers in the community referenced above. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its prices through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Operator's prices only through May 14, 1994. At a later time we will issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the prices after that date. 2. 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 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 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. 3. 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 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 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. Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. 4. Operator asserts that its monthly CPS prices are justified by its benchmark filing, but its actual prices are higher than the maximum permitted charges as calculated in the filing. Upon review of Operator's Form 393 filing, we have found that it has not correctly calculated its maximum permitted prices, and it is therefore appropriate to make the following adjustment to Operator's calculations on Form 393: Operator's calculations for its rate-regulated package as of the initial date of regulation (Form 393, Part I, and Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1) reflect 32 basic tier channels, 20 channels in its first CPS tier, and 16 channels in its second CPS tier. However, these calculations were based on a channel line-up effective prior to September 1, 1993. Based on the channel line-up which was effective on September 1, 1993, there were 23 basic tier channels, 19 channels in the first CPS tier, and 16 channels in the second CPS tier. We have therefore changed Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 102A from 32 to 23, changed Part II, Line 102B from 20 to 19, and reduced the number of regulated channels used in calculating the benchmark onPart II, Worksheet 1, Line 121 from 68 to 58. This has the effect of increasing the base rate per channel and increasing the benchmark channel rate on Part II, Worksheet 1. It has the further effect of reducing the number of channels on the first CPS tier in Part I. 5. After making this adjustment, we find that Operator's actual prices did not exceed its maximum permitted CPS prices. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the cable programming service prices charged by Operator in the community referenced above ARE DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION JoAnn Lucanik Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau