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.

*****************************************************************
********
$//Mid-Atlantic CATV Limited Partnership, Caroline County, VA, MO&O, DA 95-
2113//$
$/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$
$/benchmark cable rates/$            

                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                             Washington, D.C.

                     DA 95-2113

In the matter of     )
              )
Mid-Atlantic CATV Limited                  )           CUID No. VA0511                 
Partnership   )           (Caroline County, Virginia)
                                    )         
Complaint Regarding  )
Cable Programming Service Price     )

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       Adopted: October 3, 1995     Released: October 19, 1995 

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

       1.  Here we consider a complaint about the price Mid-Atlantic CATV Limited
Partnership ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in
Caroline County, Virginia, CUID No. VA0511.  This complaint was filed with the
Commission on November 22, 1993.  On December 20, 1993 and September 8, 1994,
Operator filed a Reply to Cable Programming Services Rate Complaint ("Reply") asserting
that it is subject to effective competition and thus its cable programming service rate is not
subject to regulation by the Commission.   Operator also submitted additional information in
response to requests by Commission staff for further documentation.  Operator did not file a
rate justification as required by the Commission. 

     2.  Operator claims that its cable system is subject to low penetration effective
competition, and therefore its cable programming service rate is not subject to rate
regulation.  Operator asserts that it serves fewer than 30 percent of the households (i.e.,
occupied housing units) within its franchise area, a portion of Caroline County.  Operator
states that, based on a survey prepared by Integrated Cable Services, an experienced cable
engineering firm, as of December 1993, there were approximately 4,024 households in the
relevant franchise area.  Operator claims that as of December 1993, it served a total of
1,142 subscribers, or 28.4 percent, of the 4,024 households in its franchise area.  As
supporting documentation, Operator submits a copy of a household trend report prepared by
Integrated Cable Services from which the estimated 1993 household data is derived. 
Operator also includes 1990 Census data applicable to all of Caroline County, and an
affidavit by a responsible official certifying the accuracy of the data presented in its Reply.  

     3.  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.  Operator has met this burden.

     4.  Turning to Operator's data, we find that Operator appropriately relied on data
reflecting the number of households as required by our rules.  Relying on this data,
Operator has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that, at the time the CPS complaint
was filed, its cable system served 1,142 of the 4,024 households, or 28.4 percent of the
households within its franchise area.  Accordingly, we find that Operator's system was
subject to low penetration effective competition on the date that the CPS complaint was filed.

     5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the request of Operator to dismiss the complaint filed against
its cable programming service price charged in the franchise area referenced in the caption IS
GRANTED.

     6.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against the cable programming
service price charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced in the caption IS
DISMISSED.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                         Meredith J. Jones
                         Chief, Cable Services Bureau