******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Comcast Cablevision of Westmoreland ) CUID No. PA1804 (Fawn Township) ) Order Denying Jurisdiction ) ORDER Adopted: April 9, 1997 Released: April 11, 1997 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we dismiss a complaint against the rates that the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community set forth above on the grounds that the complaint concerns rates that are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission"). Under the Communications Act, the Commission regulates the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition upon the filing of a valid complaint. Our review reveals that the complaint filed against Operator on March 31, 1995, while asserting that it challenges a CPST rate increase, challenges a rate increase to Operator's Value Pak, a New Product Tier ("NPT"). Therefore, the complaint does not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction. 2. On June 21, 1995, the Operator filed a motion to dismiss the subject complaint on the grounds that the complaint challenges the reasonableness of the NPT rate charged by Operator in the above-referenced franchise area. To support their motion the Operator referred to a previous Commission decision. In that decision the Commission determined that Comcast Cablevision of Tallahassee, Inc.'s Value Pak should be treated as a NPT, the creation of which was not an evasion of Commission rules. Even though Operator had removed channels from a regulated tier, Operator was not required to retier because the number of channels removed was small. Operator was allowed to treat its Value Pak offering as a NPT under the Commission's Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Going Forward Order"). We agree that in this instance the Operator's Value Pak is similar to the Value Pak offering in Tallahassee, Florida and other Value Pak offerings created by Operator. For this reason, we find that Operator's February 1, 1995 rate increase involves a package that is to be treated as a NPT and therefore the complaint filed against it does not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction. 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. Section 543(a)(2)(A) and (B), that the complaint against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DISMISSED and the motion to dismiss IS GRANTED. 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 Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau