******************************************************** 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 Cable Communications, Inc.) d/b/a Pine Belt Cable, Inc. )CUID No. MS0052 (City of Hattiesburg) ) ) Complaint Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier ) Rates ) ORDER Adopted: July 21, 1997 Released: July 24, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider a complaint about the rate increase the above-captioned Operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community referenced above. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its rates through benchmark showings on FCC Form 1200 and multiple FCC Form 1210s. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Operator's CPST rates in effect from March 1, 1995 to the present. 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. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber. If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 3.To justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark or cost of service showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. Cable operators may file an FCC Form 1210 to justify rate increases based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs, and inflation. In addition, Operators must file FCC Form 1210 with the Commission within thirty days of the date of service of the complaint regarding the new rate. 4. On June 23, 1995, Operator filed a Response of Comcast Cablevision of Hattiesburg, Inc. To A Complaint Concerning Rates for Cable Programming Services Provided in the City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi ("Response 1"). Operator asserts in Response 1 that the complaint filed on June 8, 1995, against rates implemented on March 31, 1995, is untimely filed. Section 76.953 of the Commission's rules in effect at the time the complaint was filed provides that complaints regarding the rate change for CPST or associated equipment must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from the date the complainant receives a bill from the cable operator that reflects the rate change. The complainant contends that he first received a bill reflecting the CPST rate increase on March 31, 1995. The complaint was filed with the Commission on June 14, 1995. Consequently, we find that the complaint was not timely filed and that the complaint does not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction. 5.A valid complaint for this community was filed with the Commission on April 3, 1995 against Operator's March 1, 1995, CPST rate increase from $14.70 to $15.69 and the reasonableness of the Value Pak increase from $0.43 to $1.33. On May 15, 1995, Operator filed a Response of Pine Belt Cable, Inc. To A Complaint Concerning Rates for Cable Programming Services Provided in the City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi ("Response 2"). Operator asserts in Response 2 that its monthly CPST rates are justified because the rates are equal to the maximum permitted rates as calculated on its rate justifications. In addition, Operator contends that its Value Pak should be considered a New Product Tier ("NPT"). To support its Response regarding the NPT the Operator referred to a previous Commission decision. In that decision the Commission determined that the Value Pak offered by Operator's cable system in Tallahassee, Florida should be treated as a NPT, the creation of which was not an evasion of Commission rules. The Commission found that even though Operator had removed channels from a regulated tier, Operator was not required to retier because the number of channels removed was small. We agree that in this instance the Operator's Value Pak is similar to its Value Pak offering in Tallahassee, Florida and other Value Pak offerings created by Operator. For this reason, we find that Operator's March 1, 1995 Value Pak rate increase involves a package that is to be treated as a NPT and is currently not subject to rate regulation. We will, however, review the increases in Operator's CPST rates. 6. On March 1, 1995, Operator implemented a CPST rate increase from $14.70 to $15.69. On July 1, 1995, Operator implemented a CPST rate increase from $15.69 to $16.35. On November 1, 1995, Operator implemented a CPST rate increase from $16.35 to $16.75. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200 and FCC Form 1210s we find that Operator has justified its CPST rate of $15.69 implemented on March 1, 1995. We also find that Operator has not justified its CPST rate of $16.35 implemented on July 1, 1995, and has not justified its CPST rate of $16.75 implemented on November 1, 1995. 7.Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200 we found Operator's maximum permitted rate ("MPR") of $14.34 to be reasonable. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period April 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994, we found no apparent errors in Operator's calculation of its MPR of $15.69. Thus, Operator has justified a MPR of $15.69 beginning March 1, 1995. 8. Upon review of Operator's amended FCC Form 1210 for the period January 1, 1995 to March 31, 1995, we found that Operator has not correctly calculated its MPR. Therefore, we adjusted Operator's FCC Form 1210 and changed the inflation factor in Module I, Line I5 to 1.000 because Operator had already taken an inflation adjustment of 1.0215 in its previous FCC Form 1210. This adjustment resulted in a new MPR of $15.69 versus the Operator's MPR of $15.96. Because Operator's actual rate of $16.35 was more than its revised MPR of $15.69, we find Operator's CPST rate for the period July 1, 1995 to October 31, 1995, to be unreasonable. 9.Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period April 1, 1995 to September 30, 1995, we adjusted Operator's FCC Form 1210 so that Line A1 agreed with the adjusted MPR of the prior FCC Form 1210. This resulted in a new MPR, effective November 1, 1995, of $16.48 versus $16.76 claimed by Operator. Because Operator's actual rate of $16.75 was more than its revised MPR of $16.48, we find Operator's CPST rate for the period November 1, 1995 to the present, to be unreasonable. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the CPST rates charged by Operator in the community referenced above from March 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995, ARE REASONABLE. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CPST rates charged by Operator in the community referenced above from July 1, 1995 to the present, ARE UNREASONABLE. 12.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in the community referenced above that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $15.69 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period July 1, 1995 through October 31, 1995. 13.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in the community referenced above that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $16.48 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period November 1, 1995 to the day before Operator implements the maximum permitted CPST rate of $16.48. 14.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Operator shall promptly determine the overcharges to CPST subscribers for the stated periods, and shall within 30 days of the release of this Order, file a report with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amount so determined (including franchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of Commission approval of the plan. 15.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, 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 filed with the Commission June 14, 1995 against the CPST rate charged by Operator in the community referenced above, IS DISMISSED. 16.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaint filed with the Commission April 3, 1995 against the CPST rate charged by Operator, in the community referenced above, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau