********************************************************    
                         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                )
                                )
     Post-Newsweek Cable, Inc.   )CUID No.  TX0535 (Ingleside)
d/b/a Coastal Bend Cablevision  )
                                )
Complaint Regarding             )
Cable Programming Services Tier )
Rate Increase                   )


                             ORDER

      Adopted:  June 16, 1997   Released:  June 18, 1997  

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

      1.In this Order we consider a complaint against the rate the above-captioned operator
("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service tier ("CPST") in the community
referenced above.  A single complaint was filed with the Commission on October 2, 1995 against
Operator's June 1, 1995 and  October 1, 1995 rate increases.  In response to this complaint, Operator
filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 26, 1995. 

      2.In its Motion to Dismiss, Operator argues that the complaint against the June 1, 1995
CPST rate increase was not timely filed under the Commission's rules.  Based on our review of the
record, we agree that the complaint against the June 1, 1995 CPST rate increase was not timely
filed.  Therefore, Operator's Motion to Dismiss the complaint against its June 1, 1995 CPST rate
increase is granted. 

      3.Operator also argues that the complaint against the October 1, 1995 CPST rate
increase should be dismissed because the complaint concerned a proposed increase not yet in effect
and no bill was attached to the complaint concerning the allegedly proposed increase.   We agree that
the complaint does not satisfy the "minimal showing" requirements to allow the complaint to
proceed.  Therefore, Operator's Motion to Dismiss the complaint against its October 1, 1995 CPST
rate increase is granted.  

      4.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R.  0.321, that Operator's Motion to Dismiss the complaint against Operator's June 1, 1995
CPST rate increase IS GRANTED, and the complaint against Operator's June 1, 1995 CPST rate
increase IS DISMISSED.

      5.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R.  0.321, that Operator's Motion to Dismiss the complaint against Operator's October 1,
1995 CPST rate increase IS GRANTED, and the complaint against Operator's October 1, 1995 CPST
rate increase IS DISMISSED.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



     Elizabeth W. Beaty
      Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
     Cable Services Bureau