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.

*****************************************************************
********
$// Premiere Cable of Tennessee., DA 95-2215//$
$/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tier/$
$/benchmark cable rates/$            

                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                             Washington, D.C.

                     DA 95-2215

In the matter of     )
              )
Premiere Cable of Tennessee                )           CUID No.
TN0466
              )           (Lawrence County, Tennessee)
                                    )         
Complaint Regarding  )
Cable Programming Service Price     )

                       Memorandum Opinion and Order

     Adopted: October 23, 1995      Released:  November 2, 1995 

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

       1.  Here we consider a complaint about the price Premiere
Cable of Tennessee
("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service
("CPS") tier in Lawrence
County, Tennessee, CUID No. TN0466.  On July 26, 1995, Operator
filed a Response to an
FCC staff request for a Cable Programming Services Rate
Justification ("Response")
asserting that it is subject to effective competition and thus
its cable programming service
rate is not subject to regulation by the Commission.   Operator
did not file a rate
justification as required by the Commission. 

     2.  In its Response, Operator asserts that its cable system
is subject to low penetration
effective competition because it serves fewer than 30 percent of
the households within its
franchise area, all of Lawrence County. 
     
     3.  Specifically, Operator claims that in December 1993, it
served a total of 221
subscribers, or 1.66 percent of the 13,338 households in Lawrence
County, Tennessee.  As
supporting documentation, Operator submits 1990 Census data which
shows that there are
13,338 households (i.e. occupied housing units) in its Lawrence
County, Tennessee
franchise area.  In addition, Operator provides a computer
print-out with sufficient
information to support its claim that, as of December 1993, it
served 221 subscribers in the
franchise area.  Finally, Operator includes a declaration by a
responsible official certifying
the accuracy of the data presented in its Response.

     4.  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.  Operator
appropriately relied on data
reflecting the number of households as required by our rules. 
Relying on this data,
Operator submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that, at the
time the CPS complaint was
filed, its cable system served 221 subscribers, or 1.66 percent
of the 13,338 households
within its franchise area, Lawrence County, Tennessee.  Thus, we
find that Operator's
system serving the Lawrence County, Tennessee franchise area is
subject to effective
competition.  Therefore, Operator's motion to dismiss the
complaint filed against the CPS
rate is granted.

Conclusions

     5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of
the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the motion of Operator to dismiss
the complaint against its
cable programming service price charged in Lawrence County,
Tennessee, CUID No.
TN0466, IS GRANTED.

     6.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against the
cable programming
service price charged by Lawrence County, Tennessee, CUID No.
TN0466, IS DISMISSED.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                         Meredith J. Jones
                         Chief, Cable Services Bureau