******************************************************** 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 Ocean County, Inc.)CUID Nos.NJ0049 (Mantoloking) )NJ0050 (Bay Head) )NJ0050 (Bay Head) )NJ0051 (Brick Town) )NJ0052 (Point Pleasant) )NJ0053 (Point Pleasant Beach) Complaints Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates) ORDER Adopted: July 14, 1997Released: July 16, 1997 By the Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider complaints concerning the rates of the above-captioned operator ("Operator") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the communities referenced above. Operator's response includes rate justifications filed on FCC Forms 1210 and 1240. We have already issued an order which resolved complaints against Operator's rates for the period September 1, 1993 to December 1, 1995 ("Resolution"). The Resolution resolved all outstanding complaints filed against Operator's CPST rates in the communities referenced above with the exception of a complaint filed January 22, 1996 against Operator's CPST rates in Point Pleasant (CUID NJ0052). Accordingly, this Order resolves all outstanding complaints against Operator's CPST rates beginning December 1, 1995. 2. Under the Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") is authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), and our rules implementing the 1992 Cable Act, required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber. The filing of a valid complaint under the 1992 Cable Act triggered an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing the new legislation ("Interim Rules"), require that complaints against CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received subscriber complaints. An LFA may not file a CPST rate complaint unless it receives more than one subscriber complaint within 90 days after such increase becomes effective. Under both the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Act, if the Commission finds the rate to be 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 subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to justify their rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 using a benchmark showing. 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 cable programming service rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing, or where there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate. 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. 4. On May 14, 1997, the LFA for the communities referenced above filed complaints against Operator's January 1, 1997 CPST rate increase. The LFA certified that it has received more than one subscriber complaint for each of the communities referenced above and that it has complied with the Interim Rules. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period from January 1, 1995 to September 30, 1995, we find that Operator has justified its CPST rate of $17.70, effective December 1, 1995. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period from September 30, 1995 to December 31, 1995, we find that Operator has justified its CPST rate of $18.17, effective February 1, 1996. 5. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1240 for the projected period from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997, we find that Operator has overstated its Interest on Period 1 Adjustment as found on Line H4. We have adjusted Line H4 to $14,446.90 to reflect the correct amount of interest on Operator's Period 1 Adjustment. This adjustment reduces the Total True-Up Adjustment on Line H13 to $307,545.69. Nevertheless, we find that Operator has justified its CPST rate of $20.35, effective January 1, 1997. Therefore, we find that Operator's CPST rates beginning December 1, 1995 in the above-referenced communities are not unreasonable. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rates charged by Operator in the communities referenced above from December 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996 ARE NOT UNREASONABLE. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of $20.35 charged by Operator in the communities referenced above, effective January 1, 1997, IS NOT UNREASONABLE. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the communities referenced above ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret M. Egler Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau