********************************************************    
                         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                     )
                                     )
C-TEC Cable Systems of Michigan, Inc.)     CUID No.  MI0317 (City of Whitehall)
                                     )                     
                                     )
Complaint Regarding                  )
Cable Programming Service Rate       )


                                   ORDER

      Adopted:  September 8, 1997                      Released:  September 10, 1997  

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

      1.    In this Order, we consider a complaint filed against the rate charged by the above-
referenced Operator ("Operator") for its cable programming service tier ("CPST") in the community
referenced above.  Operator contends that it is subject to effective competition in the community set
forth above.

      2.    Under the Communications Act, the 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 filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to
file a justification of its CPST rate.  If the Commission finds the rates to be unreasonable, it shall
determine correct rates and any refund liability.  

      3.    A valid complaint was filed with the Commission on October 6, 1993 against the
CPST rate charged by Operator.  The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September
1, 1993.  The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.  Cable
operator's with valid CPST complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that
their CPST rates were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint
was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their rates were in compliance with the revised rules from
May 15, 1994 forward.  Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its rates through either a
benchmark showing or a cost-of-service showing.  In either case, the operator has the burden of
demonstrating that its CPST prices are not unreasonable.  Similarly, where the operator claims that it
faces effective competition, the Commission's Rules require the cable operator to produce information
that rebuts the presumption that it is not subject to effective competition.

      4.    Operator's claim of effective competition is based on the competing provider test for
effective competition set forth in Section 76.905 of the Commission's Rules.  Under the competing
provider test a cable system is deemed subject to effective competition  where the franchise area is: 1)
served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs") each of
which offers comparable programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area;
and 2) the number of households subscribing to multichannel video programming other than the largest
MVPD exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.  

      5.    We have previously issued a decision in which we have applied the competing
provider test to the franchise area set forth above.  See In the Matter of Cross County Cable, Inc., (DA
97-472, released March 5, 1997) ("Prior Order").  In the Prior Order we found that Operator is
subject to effective competition in the community referenced above.  Therefore, our Prior Order
renders the subject complaint against the Operator moot.

      6.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules,
47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint against the cable programming service tier rate charged by
Operator in the community set forth above, IS DISMISSED.

                  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



                  Margaret M. Egler
                  Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
                  Cable Services Bureau