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 $//Lake County Cablevision, Eustis, Florida, MO&O, DA-95-924//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. DA 95-924 In the Matter of ) ) Lake County Cablevision ) CUID No. FL0350, Eustis ) Benchmark Filing to Support ) Cable Programming Service Price ) Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopted: April 25, 1995 Released: May 1, 1995 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. Here we consider a complaint about the price Lake County Cablevision ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in Eustis, Florida. 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 reasonableness of the price 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. On November 15, 1993, Operator filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Operator argues that the complaint should be dismissed because the complainant, the City of Eustis, (1) incorrectly indicated in response to question 6 on FCC Form 329 that it was complaining about a rate increase after September 1, 1993, rather than the rate in effect on September 1, 1993; (2) completed question 7 which is directed to subscribers; and (3) filed its complaint through a law firm which Operator was not aware was representing the City. Operator's assertions do not persuade us that the complaint is invalid or should be dismissed. In general, we will find valid any complaint that states a claim on which relief can be granted and provides adequate information to allow us to process the complaint, despite minor flaws or inaccuracies. We believe this approach best implements the mandate of the 1992 Cable Act. Although Operator claims there was no rate increase after September 1, 1993, we find it reasonable to conclude that the City objected to the CPS rate in effect on September 1, 1993 because that was the rate it listed under "current monthly rate" asked for in question 8. In addition, the City's superfluous completion of question 7 does not render the complaint invalid. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that the City did not authorize the law firm to file the complaint on its behalf. We therefore find the complaint valid and deny Operator's motion to dismiss the complaint. 5. Operator asserts that its monthly CPS price is justified by its benchmark filing because this price is equal to the maximum permitted charge. Upon review, we have found no apparent errors that would result in Operator's actual CPS price exceeding its maximum permitted CPS price. 6. 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. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint referenced herein against the cable programming service price charged by Operator in Eustis, Florida IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION JoAnn Lucanik Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau