WPCrg 2 BK Z CG Times#|x}Xw PE37XP"<$  ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~dddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCC/NdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhddCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4M (PCL), ROOM 201HPLA4MPC.PRSXw PE37\ TXXP2 C M Z]  #|xHP LaserJet 4M (PCL), ROOM 201HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\ TXX@  ЂX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:fx6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7Xlr5ddd,sd6X@`7@s4ddd,Ρd `768wC;,=Xw PE37XP t7zC;,bXz_ pi7X6ANE,] PE37Pt@NE,U"_ pi76V"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,,^Xu&_ x7XX2>g vKV  (\F["<$  ^ENluuNNNuNNNNuuuuuuuuuuNNu[pNNNuuNuhhRuANAuh[NuuuhuuuuuuuuuNuuuuuuuuAuuuuuhhhhh[A[A[A[AuuuuuuuuuuuuugguuguuguuuuuYAuuuuuA]u[AuugguY[Yu]OuughguuuuNuuNNN/NuuuNuccuuuuuuRuuuuRNNu<<uuuuuNuR"uuuNNNuuuuNuhupcuuuNNNNh[hhh[Ahhuhuuuhh[uhNNuuuuuuuNuhN /;k  PP9~~+k~~KkKk&&pY"i~# ^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxfX@##Xw PE37=XP#э Letter from Matthew Emmer, Fleischman and Walsh, L.L.P., attorney for Operator, to David O. Ward, FCC (May 24, 1995). "U"b0*0*0* $"Ԍ Y- x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Yy-#Xw PE37=XP#э Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Yd-amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993). and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an  Y-obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.g Yb-#Xw PE37=XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956.g Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a  Y-costofservice showing.j Yb-#Xw PE37=XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b).j In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its  Y-CPS prices are not unreasonable.Z* Y -#Xw PE37=XP#э  Id.Z  Yv-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.v Y -#Xw PE37=XP#э  Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).  Y_-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.Q_`  Yp-#Xw PE37=XP#э See Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994)  YD-(Second Order on Reconsideration); 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b).Q Operators with valid 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  Y -compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.  Y-#Xw PE37=XP#э See Second Order on Reconsideration at 4190, paras. 150152. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must  Y -complete and file FCC Form 393.Z  Y -#Xw PE37=XP#э Id.Z Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200  Y -series. M Y-#Xw PE37=XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration at 4189 n.195.  Xy-  Background   YK-x4. The Cable Services Bureau has released orders resolving letters of inquiry ("LOIs") regarding Operator's systems in Port Orchard, Washington and Southern Shores,  Y-North Carolina.  Y&-#Xw PE37=XP#э  See Falcon Cable TV, Port Orchard, Washington, LOI9350, DA 941548 (Cab.  Y'-Serv. Bur., released Dec. 22, 1994) (Port Orchard Order) and Falcon Cable TV, Southern Shores, North Carolina, LOI942, DA 941551 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Dec. 2, 1994)"( 0*0*0*("  Y-(Southern Shores Order). Relying on the Commission's Going Forward Order, { YC-#Xw PE37=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 93215, FCC 94 Y-286,  51 (adopted November 10, 1994) (Going Forward Order).#x6X@`7>fX@# the Bureau's orders" 0*0*0*(" addressed the restructured service offerings implemented in these communities beginning September 1, 1993, in which Operator eliminated its CPS tiers and offered instead only a  Y-basic service tier and a few a la carte channels. In the Port Orchard Order, the Bureau found that Operator's restructured service offerings do not constitute a clear evasion of our rate rules. Specifically, the Bureau found that Operator did not avoid rate regulation of most of its previous CPS channels because it moved those channels into a rateregulated basic tier.  Yx-With regard to the other channels, the Port Orchard Order permits Operator to treat its a la  Yc-carte package as a new product tier that may be priced at the market level under the Going  YN-Forward Order. Ng Y-#Xw PE37=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# The Commission reached the opposite conclusion in the Southern Shores Order,  Y-supra. In the Southern Shores Order, the Commission found that in creating a tenchannel a la carte tier with most of the channels taken from regulated tiers, Operator evaded cable rate  Y-regulations. #x6X@`7>fX@# Relying on the Port Orchard Order, the Commission subsequently issued a separate Memorandum, Report and Order that dismissed complaints about CPS rates filed  Y" -against numerous communities served by Operator.p3" [ g Y.-#Xw PE37=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# See Falcon Holding Group, Inc., CUID Nos. AL0060, AR0048, AR0231, AR0234, AR0376, CA0065, CA0073, CA0101, CA0152, CA0229, CA0249, CA0450, CA0582, CA0622, CA0626, CA0680, CA0708, CA0778, CA0844, CA0850, CA0890, CA0903, CA0959, CA1048, CA1049, CA1118, CA1187, CA1189, CA1190, CA1209, CA1274, CA1401, GA0036, GA0317, KY0017, KY0062, KY0067, KY0078, KY0529, KY0636, MD0004, MI0696, MO0019, MO0020, MO0024, MO0057, MO0750, NC0105, NC0119, NC0151, NC0152, NC0428, NC0965, OR0015, OR0045, OR0058, OR0071, OR0081, OR0180, OR0181, OR0199, OR0342, OR0359, TX0669, VA0025, VA0182, WA0168,  Yx-WA0229, and WA0321, DA 95857 (Cab. Serv. Bur. released April 18, 1995).#x6X@`7>fX@##Xw PE37=XP#p  Y -x5. Since the Port Orchard Order found that Operator's restructuring of its CPS tier into the basic tier and an a la carte tier of six channels did not constitute an evasion of rate regulation, and that those channels not placed on the basic service tier could be treated as a new product tier, there were no CPS tiers in those communities, as of September 1, 1993, that were subject to rate regulation pursuant to Section 76.922 of our rules. Therefore, the Bureau dismissed all FCC Form 329 complaints filed against Operator in its Port Orchard  Yl-franchise area for rates that were in effect on September 1, 1993.lVg Ys&-#Xw PE37=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# See Port Orchard Order, supra, at n.1.#Xw PE37=XP# "U 0*(("Ԍ  X- Discussion  x6. The rate cards and channel lineup cards submitted by Operator for each of the subject communities indicate that Operator restructured its service offerings on September 1,  Y-1993 in essentially the same way that it did in the Port Orchard Order. Specifically, Operator has shown that it discontinued its CPS offerings and placed all of its channels into a single basic service tier, except for a few channels which it offered on an a la carte basis. Operator offered two a la carte channels in CUID No. CA1210; five a la carte channels in CUID No. NC0487; and six a la carte channels in CUID No. WA0313. x7. We feel that we have sufficient information regarding Operator's restructured  Y -offerings in the subject communities to conclude, in accordance with the Going Forward  Y -Order, that they should be treated the same way that we treated Operator's restructured  Y -offerings in the Port Orchard Order. g Y=-#Xw PE37=XP#э This finding is based solely on the representations of Operator described herein. 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 party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein. As in the Port Orchard franchise area, although the instant restructuring resulted in the elimination of Operator's CPS tiers, the small number of channels that were offered in the a la carte package did not constitute an evasion of our then  Y-existing rules. Therefore, consistent with the action taken in the Port Orchard Order, we will allow Operator to treat its a la carte packages in the subject communities as new product tiers. Thus, we need not rule on the FCC Form 329 complaints filed against Operator in the subject communities because there were no CPS tiers subject to rate regulation pursuant to Section 76.922 of our rules as of September 1, 1993. In addition, nothing in these complaints indicate that Operator's new product tiers violate any of the conditions for  Y-establishing those tiers outlined in the Going Forward Order.wg Y-#Xw PE37=XP#э We have excused one violation, i.e., migrating channels from rateregulated tiers, in only those situations where, as here, the new product tier is established as an outgrowth of  Y-our change in our a la carte policy. See Going Forward Order at Para. 51. w  X- Conclusion  x8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the a la carte packages created by Operator in  Y-the communities listed in the caption may be treated as new product tiers under our Going  Ys-Forward Order. x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all FCC Form 329 complaints pending against the CPS rates of Operator in each of the communities listed in the caption are DISMISSED."0 0*(("Ԍx10. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhJoAnn Lucanik x` `  hhChief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division x` `  hhCable Services Bureau