******************************************************** 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 ) ) Marcus Cable Partners, L.P. ) CUID No. WI0062 ) (City of Wisconsin Rapids) ) ) ) Complaint Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates ) ORDER Adopted: July 7, 1997 Released: July 9, 1997 By the Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider complaints against the June 1, 1995 rate increase that the above- captioned operator ("Operator") implemented for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community set forth above. Operator has attempted to justify its CPST rate through a benchmark showing on FCC Forms 1200, 1210 and 1240. Accordingly, this Order addresses the reasonableness of the Operator's CPST rate beginning June 1, 1995. 2. The Communications Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") 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 the rate unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Cable operators attempting to justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must use the FCC Form 1200 series. Cable operators may also justify rate increases based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs, and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210. FCC Form 1210 must be filed at least 30 days before new rates are scheduled to go into effect where the Commission has found the CPST rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing, or where there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate. 4. The Commission has received multiple complaints against Operator dated April 11, 1995, May 6, 1995, May 12, 1995, May 15, 1995, May 17, 1995, May 20, 1995, May 24, 1995, May 28, 1995, June 8, 1995, and August 10, 1995. On June 29, 1995, Operator filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the pending complaints. Operator argues that they are invalid because the complaints concern a programming change rather than a CPST rate increase, that many of the complaints were filed on the wrong complaint form, and that many of the complainants provided incorrect information on the FCC Form 329 Complaint Form. 5. In general, we will find valid any complaint that states a claim on which relief can be granted and provides adequate information to allow us to process the complaint, despite minor flaws or inaccuracies. We believe that this approach best implements the mandate of the 1992 Cable Act. However, our review indicates that the complaints filed prior to June 14, 1995 are invalid. The complaints were filed with the Commission before the complainants received a bill reflecting Operator's June 1, 1995 rate increase as required by Section 76.953 of our rules in effect at the time the complaints were filed. Therefore, we hereby dismiss these complaints on our own motion, and consequently, we find Operator's Motion to Dismiss these complaints to be moot. 6. Our review indicates that the first valid complaint against Operator's June 1, 1995 CPST increase was filed on June 14, 1995. Although the complainant failed to respond to question number 6 on the FCC Form 329 Complaint Form, the complainant has provided us with sufficient information to conclude that complainant is challenging Operator's June 1, 1995 CPST rate increase. In addition, complainant used the correct form for challenging Operator's CPST rate increase. Based on our findings, Operator's Motion to Dismiss this complaint is hereby denied. Because we find that the complaint filed on June 14, 1995 is valid and triggers our jurisdiction, we need not determine whether the subsequent complaint filed is valid. 7. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200 and FCC Form 1210 for the period January 1, 1995 to March 31, 1995 to justify its CPST rate increase effective June 1, 1995, we have found no apparent errors in Operator's calculation of its maximum permitted rate ("MPR"). Operator's CPST rate of $14.87, effective June 1, 1995, exceeds its MPR of $14.81, Operator's subsequent FCC Form 1210 justifies Operator's CPST rate of $14.87 beginning July 1, 1995. Consequently, Operator's June 1, 1995 CPST rate, effective June 1 to June 30, 1995, is not justified and is unreasonable. 8. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period April 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995, we have found no apparent errors in Operator's calculation of its MPR. Although Operator's CPST rate of $15.03, effective October 1, 1995, exceeds Operator's MPR of $14.98, Operator's subsequent FCC Form 1240 justifies Operator's CPST rate of $15.03 beginning June 1, 1996. Therefore, Operator's October 1, 1995 CPST rate is not justified and is unreasonable. We determine, however, that the total overcharge per subscriber, when added to Operator's overcharge of June, 1995, is de minimis. Therefore, it would not serve the public interest to order a refund. 9. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1240 to justify its June 1, 1996 CPST rate increase to $16.81, we have found no apparent errors in Operator's calculation of its MPR. Consequently, Operator's CPST rate of $16.81 is justified and not unreasonable. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that Operator's CPST rate of $14.87, effective June 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995, in the community set forth above, IS UNREASONABLE. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that Operator's CPST rate of $14.87, for the period July 1, 1995 through September 30, 1995, in the community set forth above, IS REASONABLE. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that Operator's CPST rate of $15.03, effective October 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996, in the community set forth above, IS UNREASONABLE. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that Operator's CPST rate of $16.81, effective June 1, 1996 in the community set forth above, IS REASONABLE. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that untimely complaints referenced herein filed against the rate charged by Operator in the community set forth above, ARE DENIED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the rate charged by Operator in the community set forth above, ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that Operator's Motion to Dismiss, IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret M. Egler Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau