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/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/

*****************************************************************
********
$//Triax Cablevision, Grand Rapids, OH, MO&O, DA 96-351//$
$/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service tiers/$
$/benchmark cable rates/$
		     

	Before the
	FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
	Washington, D.C. 20554  DA 96-351 
In the Matter of				)			
						)	
Triax Cablevision				)        CUID No. OH1264 (Grand Rapids)          						)	
Order Denying Jurisdiction			)


	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

		Adopted:  March 12, 1996	                  Released:  March 20, 1996               

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

	1.  In this Order we dismiss a complaint against the rate that the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its basic service tier in Grand Rapids, Ohio, CUID No. OH1264, on the grounds that the complaint concerns a rate that is outside the jurisdiction and authority of the Commission.  The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate rates for cable programming services ("CPS") only upon the filing of a valid complaint.  Our review reveals that this complaint challenges the rate for basic service and not for CPS.  Therefore, the Commission lacks statutory jurisdiction to consider this complaint, and accordingly it is dismissed.
	
	2.  The  Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 distinguishes among basic cable service, premium cable service, and cable programming service.   Except in limited circumstances, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over rates for the basic service tier, and cannot act upon complaints concerning rates for that tier.    Rates for CPS tiers are subject to regulation by the Commission in response to a valid complaint.  The information provided by the complainant in this case indicates that only basic rates are at issue.  When only basic service rates are being challenged, the complaint should properly be brought to the attention of the local franchising authority in the first instance, and not filed with this Commission.

	3.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 623(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(a)(2)(A) and (B), that the complaint filed prior to May 15, 1994 against the cable programming service price charged by Operator in the community referenced in the caption IS DISMISSED.

	4.  This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.
		


				FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION	
		



				Lenworth Smith, Jr.
				Deputy Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
				Cable Services Bureau