******************************************************** 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. 2055 In the Matter of ) ) James Cable Partners, L.P. ) CUID No. OK0122 (Atoka) ) Small System Filing to Support ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates) ORDER Adopted: September 19, 1997 Released: September 24, 1997 By the Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider a complaint against the rate that the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service tier ("CPST") in the community referenced above. On August 15, 1994, Operator filed a cost of service submission on FCC Form 1220 with the Commission in response to a pre-May 15, 1994 complaint that alleged that Operator's CPST rate in the above-referenced franchise area was unreasonable. On September 29, 1995, Operator substituted a cost-of- service showing on FCC Form 1230 for its FCC Form 1220. In response to a request by Commission staff, Operator submitted an amended FCC Form 1230 on November 8, 1995. In this Order we grant Operator's request for small system relief under the Small Systems Order and, based on our review of Operator's FCC Form 1230 filing, deny the pending CPST complaint and find the CPST rate to be not unreasonable. 2. Under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, the Commission must review a cable operator's rates for its CPST upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rate. Under the Commission's rules, an operator may attempt to justify its CPST benchmark showing, or a small system cost of service showing. In any case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its rate is not unreasonable. 3. On November 15, 1993, Operator filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint in community referenced above. In its Motion, Operator requests that the Commission dismiss the complaint on the grounds that FCC Form 329, Line 5 information, regarding corrected complaints, was omitted and because complainant incorrectly answered question number 8 on its FCC Form 329. Operator asserts that the response to question 8 does not indicate what rate the subscriber finds unreasonable. Further, Operator argues that the rate entered by the complainant in response to question number 9 appears to challenge basic tier service rates. 4. Operator's assertions do not persuade us that the complaints are invalid or should be dismissed. 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 this approach best implements the mandate of the 1992 Cable Act. Because the complainant's response to question number 9 includes channels contained on the CPST, we find it reasonable to conclude that the complainant objected to the CPST rate and that they believed that rate was unreasonable. We therefore find the complaint filed in the community referenced above valid and deny Operator's Motions to Dismiss. 5. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. In a further effort to offer small cable companies administrative relief from rate regulation, the Commission amended the definition of small cable companies and small systems and introduced a simplified form of small system rate relief in Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulations; Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration ("Small Systems Order"). In the Small Systems Order, the Commission introduced FCC Form 1230 to simplify the cost-of-service showings for small cable companies and small systems. FCC Form 1230 requires that the Operator Selected Per Subscriber Monthly Programming Rate Per Channel (FCC Form 1230, Line A-11) not exceed the Per Subscriber, Per Channel Monthly Programming Costs (FCC Form 1230, Line A-6). If the maximum rate established on FCC Form 1230 does not exceed $1.24 per channel, the rate shall be presumed reasonable. Cable systems serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers, and owned by a company having 400,000 or fewer subscribers, may elect to use the small system rate mechanism found in FCC Form 1230 in lieu of other Commission rate processes, provided the Commission has not reached a final resolution on the rate complaints filed against the system. 6. We previously found that Operator is a company with fewer than 400,000 total subscribers. We now find that the system in the community referenced above serves fewer than 15,000 subscribers, making it eligible for small system status. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1230, we find that Operator's actual CPST-1 rate of $2.40 and its CPST-2 rate of $22.70, as reported on Line A11, are not unreasonable. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.934 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.934, that Operator's request for small system relief IS GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the monthly CPST rates of $2.40 (CPST 2) and $22.70 (CPST 3) charged by Operator in the community referenced above ARE NOT UNREASONABLE. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaint against the CPST rate charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DENIED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the Motion to Dismiss the complaint filed against the CPST rate charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DENIED. 11. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret M. Egler Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau