********************************************************    
                         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             )       CUID No. MI1039 (City of Detroit)
                                )
                                )
Order Denying Jurisdiction      )
                                )
                                 

                            ERRATUM

   Adopted:  May 29, 1997               Released:  May 30, 1997

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

     Paragraph 1 of Comcast Cablevision, DA 97-1086, released May 28, 1997, is corrected to
read as follows:

     1.   In this Order we dismiss complaints against the rates that the above-captioned
operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the
community set forth above because the complaints concern rates that are outside the jurisdiction of
the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission").  Under the Communications Act, the
Commission regulates the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition upon the
filing of a valid complaint.  Our review reveals that the complaints filed against Operator, while
asserting that they challenge a CPST rate, challenge only a rate for the basic service tier, and not a
CPST rate.  Consequently, the complaints do not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Elizabeth W. Beaty 
                         Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
                         Cable Services Bureau