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.

*****************************************************************
********
$//Horizon Cablevision, Inc.., MO&O, DA 95-2152//$
$76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$
$/benchmark cable rates/$           

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

                       DA 95-2152


In the Matter of)  
     )          
Horizon Cablevision, Inc.        )     CUID No. MI0478 (Concord, MI)
Withdrawal of FCC Form 329       )     
Rate Complaint  )     
     
                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  October 12, 1995              Released:  October 24, 1995  

By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.  A complaint with this Commission was filed by the local franchising authority
("LFA") in the above-referenced community alleging that the price charged by Horizon
Cablevision, Inc. ("Horizon") for cable programming service tier ("CPS") services in the
Township of Concord, Michigan was unreasonably high.  In March of 1994, the LFA wrote to
the Commission stating that they wished to withdraw the complaint .   The LFA was the only
complainant that filed a valid complaint with this Commission.  Our jurisdiction to regulate
CPS rates arises with the filing of a valid complaint against those rates.  The withdrawal of the
only complaint against an operator's CPS rates in a community constitutes the termination of
our jurisdiction to regulate those rates.  We will allow the withdrawal of the complaint, and
our review of the filing will therefore be terminated. 

     2.  Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 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
obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.  Under our
rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a 

cost-of-service showing.  In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its
CPS prices are not unreasonable.

     3.  The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.  The
Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.  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 compliance with the
revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.  Operators attempting to justify their prices for the
period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form
393.  

     4.  This Commission has now received from the LFA a letter stating that it wishes to
withdraw its CPS rate complaint against Horizon.  Under our rules, this Commission's
authority to regulate CPS rates arises when a valid complaint against those rates is filed.  The
LFA is the only complainant.  Our mandate is to "protect subscribers of any cable system that
is not subject to effective competition from rates that exceed the rates that would be charged if
such a system were subject to effective competition."  While our rules forbid collusive
agreements between operators and local franchising authorities regarding forebearance from
rate regulation, there is no evidence of any such agreements here.   We will accordingly allow
the LFA to withdraw the complaint.  Because our review of the rate justification showings is
predicated on the existence of a rate complaint, we are terminating our review of Vantage
Cables's filings in the above-referenced community. 

          5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that permission to withdraw the FCC Form 329 rate
complaints against cable programming service rates in the above-noted community IS
GRANTED, and the review of the resulting rate justification filing IS TERMINATED to the
extent discussed herein.


     
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




     JoAnn Lucanik
     Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
     Cable Services Bureau