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 how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** $//Inland Valley Cablevision, Uninc. Riverside County, Ca, MO&O, DA 95-1737//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 95-1737 In the matter of ) ) Inland Valley Cablevision ) CUID No. CA1385 ) (Uninc. Riverside County) Complaints Regarding Cable ) Programming Service Rate ) Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopted: August 8, 1995 Released: August 17, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: Introduction 1. Here we consider complaints about the price Inland Valley Cablevision ("Inland") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in unincorporated Riverside County, California. Inland filed a motion to dismiss the complaints arguing that it is subject to effective competition and thus its cable programming service rate is not subject to regulation by the Commission. Inland did not file a rate justification as required by the Commission Rules. 2. The first complete and timely complaint regarding Inland's CPS rate for unincorporated Riverside County, California was filed with the Commission on December 7, 1993. In response to this complaint, Inland filed a motion to dismiss on December 14, 1993. On April 20, 1995 and July 24, 1995, Inland submitted additional information in response to requests by Commission staff for further documentation. Because in this Order we are dismissing the complaints on the grounds that effective competition is present, we find it unnecessary to rule on Inland's other objections to the complaints filed against it in this franchise area. Discussion 3. Inland asserts that its cable system is subject to low penetration effective competition, and therefore its cable programming service rate is not subject to rate regulation. Inland asserts that it serves fewer than 30 percent of the households (i.e., occupied housing units) within its franchise area, the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Inland states that, based on projected estimates prepared by Mountain Mailings, a demographics consulting firm, as of June 1993, there were 68,659 households in the relevant franchise area. Specifically, Inland claims that as of October 30, 1993, it served a total of 12,822 subscribers, or 18.7 percent, of the total number of households in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. As supporting documentation, Inland submits a copy of a household trend report prepared by Mountain Mailings from which the estimated 1993 household data is derived. In addition, Inland provides a computer printout as of October 30, 1993 which indicates that it served 12,822 subscribers. 4. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be subject to effective competition. The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined by Section 76.905 of the Commission's Rules, is present within its franchise area. Inland has met this burden. 5. Inland submits a computer printout establishing its subscribership as of October 30, 1993. As stated above, the first complete and timely CPS complaint against Inland was filed with the Commission on December 7, 1993. Petitions for reconsideration of certification require the cable operator to demonstrate effective competition based on data as of approximately the time of certification, but no earlier than two months before the request for certification was filed. However, Riverside County has not filed for certification to regulate basic cable service rates. In such cases, we believe the appropriate date upon which to base our effective competition analysis is approximately as of the date that the CPS complaint was filed with the Commission. Because the subscribership data submitted by Inland predates the CPS complaint by less than two months, it is satisfactory to the Commission. 6. Turning to Inland's data, we find that Inland appropriately relied on data reflecting the number of households as required by our rules. Relying on this data, Inland has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that, as of December 7, 1993, its cable system serving the unincorporated areas of Riverside County served 12,822 of the 68,659 households, or 18.7 percent of the households within its franchise area. Accordingly, we find that Inland's system serving Riverside County, California was subject to effective competition on December 7, 1993. Conclusions 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the motion of Inland Valley Cablevision to dismiss the complaints against its cable programming service price charged in unincorporated Riverside County, California, CUID No. CA1385, IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints against the cable programming service price charged by Inland Valley Cablevision in unincorporated Riverside County, California, CUID No. CA1385, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau