********************************************************    
                         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                )
                                )  CUID No. PA1543 (Newport)
Gans Multimedia Partnership     )
                                )  
                                )                           
                                )
Order Denying Jurisdiction      )

                                 
                             ORDER

   Adopted:  April 27, 1998             Released:  April 30, 1998  

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

     1.   In this Order we dismiss a complaint against the rate that the above-captioned operator
("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community set forth above
because the complaint concerns a rate that is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications
Commission ("Commission").  The Operator has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  

     2.   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.  Complainant filed its first complaint
on October 11, 1993 and the complaint was dismissed due to several errors.  Complainant was given one
additional opportunity to cure the defect of the complaint and file a corrected complaint within 30 days.  The
complainant refiled its complaint on December 3, 1993.  This complaint was also returned to the complainant
who refiled again on December 20, 1993.  Our review reveals that the complainant failed to cure the defect and
file a corrected complaint with the Commission within 30 days from the date of the Commission's original
dismissal notice.  Consequently, this complaint does not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction.

     3.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 against
the CPST rate charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DISMISSED and the motion to
dismiss IS GRANTED.

     4.   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



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