******************************************************** 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 Tallahassee, Inc. ) CUID No. FL0033 (Tallahassee) ) Complaints Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates ) ORDER Adopted: June 9, 1997 Released: June 11, 1997 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider complaints against the rates the above-referenced operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community referenced above. Operator has attempted to justify its CPST rates through benchmark justifications on FCC Form 1200, multiple FCC Form 1210's, and FCC Form 1240. We have already issued a separate order in which we determined Operator's refund liability and finally resolved all pending complaints against Operator's CPST rates for the period September 1993 through July 15, 1994. Accordingly, this Order addresses only the reasonableness of Operator's CPST rates in effect after July 15, 1994. 2. Under the Communications Act, the Commission is authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing the new legislation ("Interim Rules"), require that complaints against the CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received more than one subscriber complaint. 3. The first valid complaint filed with the Commission after July 15, 1994 was filed by the LFA for the franchise area referenced above on November 2, 1994, against Operator's November 1, 1994 CPST rate increase from $10.66 to $10.73. The most recent valid complaint filed with the Commission was filed by the LFA on April 18, 1997, against Operator's January 1, 1997 rate increase from $13.21 to $14.62. For the most recent complaint, the LFA verified that it received more than one subscriber complaint for the franchise area and that the first valid complaint was received by the LFA on January 2, 1997. The filing of a complete and timely complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. The Operator has the burden of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are reasonable. 4. To justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. Operators are permitted to make changes to their rates on a quarterly basis using FCC Form 1210. Operators may alternatively justify adjustments to their rates on an annual basis using FCC Form 1240 to reflect reasonably certain and quantifiable changes in external costs, inflation, and the number of regulated channels that are projected for the twelve months following the rate change. Any incurred cost that is not projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates at a later time. 5. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200, multiple FCC Form 1210s and FCC Form 1240 for the period May 15, 1994 through December 31, 1997, we find that Operator charged in excess of its calculated maximum permitted rate ("MPR") beginning April 1, 1995, as discussed below. 6. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200, we find Operator's MPR of $10.66 to be reasonable. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period April 1, 1994 through September 30, 1994, we find Operator's MPR of $10.74 to be reasonable. Therefore, we find Operator's actual CPST rate of $10.73, effective November 1, 1994, to be reasonable. 7. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period October 1, 1994 through March 31, 1995, we find Operator's MPR of $11.89 to be reasonable. Because Operator's actual CPST rate of $11.95 exceeds its MPR by $.06, we find Operator's actual CPST rate of $11.95, effective April 1, 1995, to be unreasonable. However, we find this overcharge to be de minimis and it would not be in the public interest to order a refund. 8. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period April 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995, we find Operator's MPR of $12.82 to be reasonable. Therefore, we find Operator's actual CPST rate of $12.82, effective November 1, 1995, to be reasonable. 9. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period October 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, we find Operator's MPR of $13.21 to be reasonable. Therefore, we find Operator's actual CPST rate of $13.21, effective March 1, 1996, to be reasonable. 10. Finally, upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1240 for the projected period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997, we find Operator's MPR of $14.62 to be reasonable. Therefore, we find Operator's actual CPST rate of $14.62, effective January 1, 1997, to be reasonable. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rate of $10.73, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective November 1, 1994 through March 31, 1995, IS REASONABLE. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rate of $11.95, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective April 1, 1995 through October 31, 1995, IS UNREASONABLE TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rate of $12.82, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective November 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996, IS REASONABLE. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rate of $13.21, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective March 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, IS REASONABLE. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rate of $14.62, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective January 1, 1997 through the present, IS REASONABLE. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the referenced complaints ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT DISCUSSED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau