WPCi 2a BEK Z Courier Y-#XR  P7jQXP#HP4M; Local Printer; LPT1tional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\IX@<?xxx,ix6X@`7X@8wC;,Xw PE37XP<I,G6X@`7@D@NE,-_ pi7D7zC;,mXz_ pi7XV"G($,=hG PE37hP<R&HHH,>K,H6X@`7h@6uC;,QXu&_ x7XX XX` ` (#`  tyltyle }X(# 48.dds951001.FddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L3|wer; LPT1tional)HL4MPCAD.PRSXw PE37\IXP2  / Z w CourierCG TimesCG Times Bold#Xw PE37}XP#CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic P7jQ}XP#HP4Si Room 804_2; LPT24_2HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\ yX@3|w24/ f vNpCourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`La8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2Wkfk<va6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2t  :BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2!   t 3!a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2%-""#$a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2;(%_&&'a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2*m())[*a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2/13+F,eJ00Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:K,H6X@`7h@6uC;,E:Xu&_ x7XXInitialize Document Stylez  0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2n]DLf RJ\"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx)-Communications Act,  623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993).#x6X@`7iX@#"z 0*0*0*" 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"z 0*0*0*"  Y-of its CPS prices. Yy<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956.#x6X@`7iX@#ю Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through  Y-either a benchmark showing or a costofservice showing.y Y<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956(b)#x6X@`7iX@#. In either case, the operator has  Y-the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable.* W<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#Id.#x6X@`7iX@#с  Y-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.C Y0 <ԍ #Xw PE37XP#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.  Y -Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).#x6X@`7iX@#C  Y-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.^  Y<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)#x6X@`7iX@#. 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  Y1-prices were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.1  Y<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#See Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190, paras. 150152.#x6X@`7iX@# 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.   Wv<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#Id.#x6X@`7iX@#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.  s Y<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC  Y-Rcd at 4189 n.195.#x6X@`7iX@#  Y -x4. On July 6, 1994, Operator filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Operator asserts that it did not receive the complaint from the complainant and was not aware of the complaint until it found a copy in the Commission's files. Operator's assertions do not persuade us that the complaint is invalid or should be dismissed. The complainant certified on FCC Form 329 that it mailed a copy to Operator on February 25, 1994. Although Operator asserts that it did not receive a copy of the complaint at that time, under our rules  Y-service is complete upon mailing.j  Y%<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#47 C.F.R.  76.956(a). j We will therefore consider February 25, 1994 as the date of service, but we will not consider imposing penalties on Operator for failing to" 0*(('" respond to the complaint in a timely manner. x5. 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  Yv-permitted CPS price.  - v Y<ԍ #Xw PE37XP#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 that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any  Y -party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.#x6X@`7iX@#- x6. Accordingly, IT IS 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 JoAnn Lucanik Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division x` `  hh Cable Services Bureau x` `  hh@