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.

*****************************************************************
********
$/ORDER remanding local rate order of Laguna Hills, CA, DA 95-1943/$
$/76.922 Basic Tier Rates/$
$/76.923 Rates for equipment and installation/$
$/76.933 Franchising Authority Review of basic cable rates and equipment costs/$
$/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Rate Decision/$

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

                                        
In the Matter of:                  )    
                              )
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.      )
                              )         DA 95-1943
Appeal of Local Rate               )
Order of the City of               )
Laguna Hills, California           )


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  September 11, 1995            Released:  September 15, 1995

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   On May 11, 1995, Cox Communications, Inc. ("Cox"), formerly Times
Mirror Cable Television of Orange County, Inc. d/b/a Dimension Cable Services, filed with
the Commission an appeal of the local rate order released on April 12, 1995 by the City of
Laguna Hills, California (the "City").  In its order, the City rescinded an earlier order
issued on September 13, 1994 which had been remanded by the Commission for further
proceedings.  The Commission's order remanding the earlier local rate order was based on
an appeal filed by Cox on October 13, 1994.  On March 10, 1995, the Commission granted
in part and denied in part Cox's earlier appeal and remanded the City's September 13, 1994
rate order for further proceedings.  In Times Mirror of Orange County, we held, among
other things, that the City had improperly disallowed a charge Cox assessed on cable
programming service (CPS) tier subscribers with additional outlets.  In the most recent local
rate order, the City again disallowed the additional outlet charge.  Cox asserts that the City's
action was in violation of our rules and earlier order since the Commission, not local
franchising authorities, has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes over CPS-related
charges.  

II.  DISCUSSION

     2.   Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be
appealed to the Commission.  In ruling on appeals of local rate orders, the Commission will
not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the franchising authority's decision as
long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision.  The Commission will reverse a
franchising authority's decision only if the Commission determines that the franchising
authority acted unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its local rate
order.  If the Commission reverses a franchising authority's decision, it will not substitute
its own decision but instead will remand the issue to the franchising authority with
instructions to resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal.  

     3.   As we previously held, because the additional outlet charge is imposed only in
connection with programming carried on the CPS tier, the Commission, not the City, has
jurisdiction over this matter.  Since the City lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter, we
will grant Cox's appeal.  We again remand this issue to the City with a strong admonition
that it take prompt steps to modify its local rate order in conformance with our prior order. 
Failure to do so may result in further action by the Commission, including review of the
City's authority to regulate basic rates.  If any party to an appeal disagrees with our ruling
on an issue, it should pursue the remedies provided by our rules, see  47 C.F.R.  1.106
and 1.115.  It may not, as the City did here, simply disregard the ruling.  

III. ORDERING CLAUSES

     4.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Cox's appeal IS GRANTED.  IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the City's local rate order IS REMANDED to the City for
resolution in accordance with the terms of this Order.

     5.   This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority
delegated by section 0.321 of the Commission's rules.  47 C.F.R.  0.321.



                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                    Meredith J. Jones
                    Chief, Cable Services Bureau