********************************************************    
                         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                )
                                )
US Cable                        )
                                )  CUID No.  IN0301 (Michigan City)
                                )                                )
Order Denying Jurisdiction      )
                                 


                             ORDER

     Adopted:  May 21, 1997             Released:  May 28, 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 because 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, while
asserting that it challenges a CPST rate, challenges a rate increase to Operator's Value Pak, a New
Product Tier ("NPT"), and not a CPST rate.  Consequently, the complaint does not trigger the
Commission's jurisdiction.

     2.   On July 17, 1995, the Operator filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the
complaint challenges the reasonableness of the NPT rate charged by Operator in the above-
referenced franchise area.  On September 1, 1993, Operator restructured its service offerings and
began offering individually and through the Value Pak, four channels that were previously on the
CPST.  In a prior order regarding another system owned by Operator, the Commission determined
that even though Operator had removed channels from a regulated tier, Operator was not required
to retier because only four channels were removed from the CPST.  Operator was permitted to treat
its Value Pak offering as a NPT.  Because the facts before us are identical to the facts in the prior
order, we find that the same treatment is warranted for the Operator's Value Pak in the community
referenced above.  For this reason, we find that Operator's September 1, 1993 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 filed by the Operator 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