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 $//Monterey Peninsula TV Cable, Pacific Grove, CA, MO&O, DA 95-1163//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 95-1163 In the Matter of ) ) Monterey Peninsula TV Cable ) CUID No. CA0036 (Pacific Grove) ) Benchmark Filing to Support ) Cable Programming Service Price ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 25, 1995 Released: June 2, 1995 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. Here we consider a complaint about the price the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in the community referenced above. 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. The complaint in the franchise area which is the subject of this Order was served on Operator on October 28, 1993 and was received by the Commission on October 15, 1993. On November 15, 1993, Operator filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In its motion, Operator requests that the Commission dismiss the complaint for a number of reasons. First, Operator asserts that the complainant incorrectly answered question number 9 on FCC Form 329 as it then existed because he listed in his complaint channels that were sold on the basic service tier as well as channels that were offered on the CPS tier. In addition, Operator urges the Commission to find the complaint deficient on the ground that the complainant incorrectly answered question number 8. Operator argues that the challenged rate as listed by the complainant includes basic rates and therefore does not indicate what rate the complainant finds unreasonable. 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. Because the complainant's response to question number 9 includes channels contained on the CPS tier and because the rates listed in answer number 8 and on the attached bill indicate that the complainant received the CPS tier, we find it reasonable to conclude that the complainant objected to the CPS tier rate and that he believed that rate was unreasonable. We therefore find the complaint valid and deny Operator's motion to dismiss. 5. Operator asserts that its monthly CPS price is justified by its benchmark filing because this price is lower than 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 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 Cable Services Bureau