WPC | 2 BEK Z Courier Y-#XR  P7jQ=XP#HP LaserJet 4M (PCL), ROOM 201HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\ TXX@"i~# ^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxfx6X@`7X@68wC;,=Xw PE37XP6ANE,] PE37Pt@NE,U"_ pi7t7zC;,bXz_ pi7X6V"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,^Xu&_ x7XXxxxWIxkWWWWWWWWWW(xfx6X@`7X@68wC;,=Xw PE37XP6ANE,] PE37Pt@NE,U"_ pi7t7zC;,bXz_ pi7X6V"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,^Xu&_ x7XX?xxx,/x `7XTimes BoldCG TimesCG Times BoldCourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Timealic\ TXXP @4  ?xxx,Tx `7Xf 7ZCourierCG TimesCG Times BoldTimes New RomanTimes Noman BoldCG Times Italic 2{ pl1o "<$  ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8oddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCC/NdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddddCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2 | <(y $//United Video Cablevision, Chesterfield, MO, MO&O, DA 952059//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ <(y   b<x` `  hh # PE37]P# #_ pi7U"# Before the l Federal Communications Commission LWashington, D.C.  a< `*(##XP\  P6Q=XP# DA 952059 ă  Y -#XR  P7jQ=XP#In the Matter of hh)  Y -x` `  hh)@  Y{ -United Video Cablevision, Inc.hh)@CUID No. MO0888 (Chesterfield)xx 0(#(#Xx` `  hh)  YM-Benchmark Filing to Supporthh)@hpp  Y6-Cable Programming Service Pricehh)@h pp  xx 0  X-x` `   Memorandum Opinion and Order  Y-xAdopted: September 28, 1995 @hppReleased: October 6, 1995 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau:  YP-  x1. Here we consider a complaint about the price United Video Cablevision, Inc. ("United Video") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in Chesterfield, Missouri, CUID No. MO0888. United Video has chosen to attempt to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393.  Y-x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,. j YV-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  YA -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 a cable operator's prices for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable  Y -operator to file a justification of its CPS prices. f j Y%-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.956. Under our rules, an operator may attempt  Yj!-to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a costofservice showing.j! j Y2(-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b). In"j!0*0*0*""   either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not  Y-unreasonable.H Yb-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# Id.ħ  Y-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.l{H Y-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# 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).l  Y-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.KH Y-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# See Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of  Y-Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (#Xu&_ x7^XX#"Second  Y-Order on Reconsideration"#Xw PE37=XP#); 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b).  Y-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.H Y-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# 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._ H Y-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# Id.ħ Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200  Y1-series. 1: H Y-#XP\  P6Q=XP##XP\  P6Q=XP#э#Xw PE37=XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration at 4189 n.195.  Y -   Y -    x4. The only complaint against United Video's CPS rate in Chesterfield, Missouri, CUID No. MO0888, was filed on March 3, 1994 and states that it was filed to object to a rate increase for the CPS tier offered by United Video. Under the Commission's rules, a complaint regarding a rate change for the CPS tier may be filed within 45 days from the date  Yb-the complainant first receives a bill reflecting the rate change. bH Y -#Xw PE37=XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.953(b). Complaints about rates in effect on September 1, 1993 must be filed by February 28, 1994. 47 C.F.R.  76.953(a). However, according to the complaint, the complainant first received a bill reflecting the rate change on November 8, 1993. Therefore, the filing of the complaint on March 3, 1994 was not timely and the complaint must be dismissed.  Y- x": 0*((" x5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint filed March 3, 1994 against the cable programming service charge of United Video Cablevision, Inc. in Chesterfield, Missouri, CUID No. MO0888, IS DISMISSED. x x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhJoAnn Lucanik x` `  hhChief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division x` `  hhCable Services Bureau  Y -#x6X@`7>fX@#   #XP\  P6Q=XP#