********************************************************    
                         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                )
                                )
Century Communications          )
                                 )CUID No.  PR0012 (Catano)
                                      )
                                )
Order Denying Jurisdiction      )
                                 


                             ORDER

      Adopted:  June 11, 1997  Released:  June 18, 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 September 1, 1993, Operator restructured its service offerings and began offering
individually and through the Value Pak, three channels that were previously on the CPST.  In a prior
order regarding other systems 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 three to six channels were removed from the tier.  Operator was permitted to treat its Value Pak
offering as a NPT.  Because the facts before us are similiar 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 January 1, 1994 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.

      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